Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasper Ameye


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:NSPORT is quite clear in its applicable policies and guidelines section, that "the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline". The idea that this SNG overrides GNG is demonstrably false. There is no indication that this individual satisfies GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Jasper Ameye

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite passing WP:NFOOTY, he fails WP:GNG with very limited resources. HawkAussie (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets NFOOTBALL and has ongoing career. GiantSnowman 15:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article about amateur footballer who once played in a Belgian top league match. There is no significant online coverage (Het Nieuwsblad has a single article about his time at Torhout which is not in depth at all). Article comprehensively fails the GNG, and accordingly the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL stemming from that single Belgian league match is invalid. Jogurney (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets NFOOTBALL and as per WP:N and WP:SNG it not necessary to meet GNG, so User:Jogurney's delete isn't valid. (I haven't checked to see if GNG is met - as it's not relevant) Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The GNG is always relevant to notability - the SNG is merely a presumption based on likelihood to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you are getting this interpretation, User:Jogurney. WP:N clearly says "meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". So either GNG or SNG is good. This is confirmed under WP:SNG where it clearly says that "A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article". And to top it off WP:NSPORTS says "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." So we need reliable sources, not GNG sources. I think you may have confused the requirement for reliable sources, with the requirement for players who don't meet a SNG, needing GNG sources. Nfitz (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You've advanced the same argument at Articles for deletion/Yassine Tekfaoui (which is contrary to NSPORTS itself - as it says the SNG is simply a presumption based on likelihood of passing the GNG, so obviously failing the GNG means the presumption is invalid), and I responded there. Jogurney (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * SNG clearly says that you don't need to meet both GNG and subject-specific criteria. I've no idea if either meet GNG, as it's not relevant, so no point spending the time checking. Nfitz (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The SNG says that there is a presumption of notability. If the article can be shown to comprehensively fail the GNG, the presumption is invalid. That's the case here. Jogurney (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No where do I see the words "If the article can be shown to comprehensively fail the GNG, the presumption is invalid" (though I don't know how one would EVER be able to show that - it's the whole prove a negative thing). But WP:SNG clearly says "A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article". Nfitz (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: not commenting on the merits of this topic, but I thought I'll contribute to the policy discussion. It seems the general consensus in relation to the notability of footballers is that, while meeting WP:NFOOTY is a strong indicator of notability, footballers who barely clear the NFOOTY threshold ought to demonstrate GNG as well. See, for example, this AfD vote (which was incidentally one of the few ones I got my vote wrong recently), where I was reminded of the need for GNG to be demonstrated for a footballer who technically just passed SNG. Also pointing out WP:WINNEROUTCOMES, which reads: There is consensus that footballers who play a minimal amount in a fully-professional league but comprehensively fail the general notability guideline are not notable. Of course, neither page refers to a policy / guideline, and again what amounts to barely clearing the NFOOTY threshold and playing a minimal amount is a matter for editor's interpretation. --Dps04 (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete There is consensus at AfD discussions that SNGs cannot override the GNG. In another deletion discussion about a sportsperson who meets the relevant SNG but fails the GNG, someone mentioned this request for comment. Just meeting NFOOTY really isn't enough. This person seems to fail the GNG: there is only one source that is worth anything. PJvanMill (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But User:PJvanMill, WP:SNG says that it DOES override GNG. I've not even looked at the sources for GNG - why send everyone chasing down rabbit holes if SNG is met, and reliable sources exist? Nfitz (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nfitz, have you looked at the RfC I linked? The consensus is really pretty clear on this. Also, the WP:SNG guideline makes clear that SNGs are meant as placeholders for the GNG: they provide a reasonable indication that the subject will meet the GNG as well. When it turns out that the subject outright fails the GNG, an SNG cannot save it. PJvanMill (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This was 3 years ago. If this was binding, SNG would not say that GNG isn't necessary. It also confirmed that " the criteria at NSPORT are useful tools to try to quickly determine the likelihood of an article meeting the GNG". Does this subject meet GNG? I don't know ... haven't checked. SNG tells us that we are wasting our time ... oh and look here, in 3 seconds ... a GNG source. So why do we waste our time once we've established a clear black line? Time and time again, this ends up in a debate on how good the GNG sources are ... we shouldn't be wasting time like this Nfitz (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is one GNG source, the only one in the article. The GNG requires multiple. So, if that is all there is, it fails the GNG and should be deleted. PJvanMill (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * GNG doesn't explicitly require more than one GNG source. SNG is met and explicitly says that GNG doesn't have to be met. And there's plenty of other independent reliable secondary sources over the years such as this and this; and there's certainly in-depth primary sources such as this. You're splitting hairs. Nfitz (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG says "sources". The basic criteria for notability of people, WP:BASIC, which is essentially a reformulation of the GNG, explicitly says "multiple". The sources you just linked don't count much toward notability in my (admittedly quick) assessment. PJvanMill (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BASIC explicitly says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" - and I just gave an examples of that. BASIC also refers to additional criteria below. If it all comes down to meeting BASIC/GNG and nothing else, we wouldn't need additional criteria. Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You still have to pass GNG even if you technically pass a SNG, that's long established and why it's so difficult to craft new SNGs (since you have to show that there's a presumption GNG is met.) Ameye does not meet GNG and barely passes the SNG with only fourteen minutes played. The three articles are either very routine (youth player being loaned out, only a couple grafs) or an interview, which specifically doesn't count. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Definitely meets NFOOTY and it may safely be assumed that there is sufficient Belgian media coverage to meet GNG per WP:NEXIST. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:NEXIST says once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. This article has existed since 2014 - and I trust Nfitz and others have been doing their best to find more. PJvanMill (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * NEXIST is referring to reliable sources - of which we have a lot of. The GNG argument centres around how in-depth those sources are. I agree that without reliable sources, the article should be deleted. Reliable source are not the same as in-depth sources. I don't think anyone suggests we don't have reliable sources. Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete He hasn't played in any category with tracked statistics since 2016, so he's not active or likely to generate any further coverage. He played 14 minutes in the Belgium Pro League in 2014 which puts him into the barely passing NFOOTY category and can't find any specific SIGCOV on him, especially considering he played in a time where SIGCOV should be easily found. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. There has been no assertion that there exists sources suitable for establishing notability—while multiple sources may be combined where any given source is not substantial, trivial coverage may not be used. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.