Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manon van Raay (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. After three relistings and extensive discussion, no consensus for a particular outcome has transpired in this discussion. North America1000 11:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Manon van Raay
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Kept on WP:TRAINWRECK grounds previously without prejudice against being nominated again on its own. In my view, Van Raay and Louise van Oosten (already up for AfD) were the only players from that previous discussion that do not demonstrate a passing of WP:GNG. I believe that this article should be deleted because it's based on a teenager with no claim to significance who is not in the public eye at all. A Google News search yields only passing mentions in match reports, most of which are from ADO Den Haag's own website, an unacceptable source when it comes to establishing notability. A Dutch source search similarly comes up with very little. AD has one article which looks like it's more than a passing mention but, when you look at it closely, it's almost entirely just a long direct quote from her and contains very little input from a third party. GNG requires multiple sources.

Please can anyone arguing for 'keep' please provide WP:THREE sources addressing Van Raay directly and in depth? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per the always diligent nominator Spiderone. Geschichte (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be best to exclude the 2nd source as it's sourced directly to ADO Den Haag so not really an independent source. I suppose the question is whether 1 and 3 are enough for GNG unless there are better sources out there. Source 1 has the sort of depth that is often considered to be 'routine' at AfD and not an indication of notability but, of course, many would argue the other way. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All three look fine to me. In-depth, independent, and not routine. Written in fine, independent media. Two out of three also have their authors listed. One of these two is the article you wanted to exclude. There are additional sources that are great for referencing. The three above confirm notability. gidonb (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Clearly some degree of coverage. Editors are reminded that articles produced on a player by the player's employer, I.e. their club are not considered to be independent but are essentially WP:PRIMARY. This currently leaves us with two sources of reasonable length. Close but probably not close enough yet to say keep votes have presented strong enough arguments to create a valid consensus. Definitely scope for further discussion though. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG>--Ortizesp (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it passes GNG with the sourcesJackattack1597 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. With regret I have to say that the relister, with whom I have otherwise a good experience, clearly mischaraterizes source 2 and makes improper use of the relisting to drop a contentious opinion. Said message is not the purpose of relist messages and not supported by the references or policies. gidonb (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Current sources provided not enough to suggest passing GNG in my book. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources above establish notability. GNG asks for multiple sources, which we have. She plays professionally in the top women's league in the Netherlands. NemesisAT (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - There appears to be just enough online Dutch-language coverage of Van Raay to satisfy WP:GNG. In addition to the in-depth Algemeen Dagblad article cited above, this goes into some detail and notes she is the first product of ADO's U16 side to play for the club in the Eredivisie. There is plenty of routine coverage as well, and some non-routine but not quite in-depth coverage like this as well. Jogurney (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The second site you reference is a press release from ADO (at the bottom it says source: ADO Den Haag Women), so on top of being a trivial mention it is not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I should have reviewed that one more carefully. While I still believe the AD article counts toward the GNG (it is more than just an interview with the subject of this biography), none of the other online coverage appears to count, so we have a GNG failure. Thus, I'm changing my !vote to delete. Jogurney (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Dougal18 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This source consists almost entirely of quotes from her seemingly scraped from the ADO website. This blurb is routine signing coverage and comprises at most 5 short sentences on where she played previously, followed by a paragraph of quotes from her and her coach. This article is more comprehensive, but again relies on the same formula of the author summarizing quotes from her rather than giving independent analysis; this is barely a step above a pure interview and I would certainly not call it encyclopedic SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with this. Put it better than I was able to myself. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established with substantial and independent coverage. Avilich (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep scrapes through WP:GNG subject is 18 years with an ongoing career.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which sources do you think have significant coverage, and how would you respond to JoelleJay's well reasoned vote above? Btw, "subject is 18 years with an ongoing career" is basically an admission that there is none. Avilich (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:GNG met on the strength of the sources presented by gidonb and Jogurney. A couple of other points: We see at Articles for deletion/Barbara Lorsheijd (2nd nomination) that there's often a tendency to hold female footballer articles to different (much higher) standards - sometimes to the point of absurdity. If we took van Raay's sort of male analogs (Xander Severina, Yahya Boussakou for example) you could expect to see typically much poorer sources than the ones being demanded here. Nonetheless if any of them ended up at AfD, a phalanx of football editors would be along to save them - all dogmatically, robotically, lazily and (in some cases) brainlessly citing WP:NFOOTBALL. I also agree that Fenix down used his relisting comment as a delete !vote, as has become usual in these cases. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFF and RGW are not valid AfD arguments. That said, I agree there is a group of 3-5 problematic editors who !vote keep for most NSPORT-meeting athletes (male and female) regardless of actual coverage; thankfully I think it's becoming more and more clear to closers that those !votes are worthless and should be disregarded. The best way to discourage mindless NSPORT !votes is to bring the guidelines closer to GNG; the only way to do that is to demonstrate GNG is not currently met for a substantial proportion of athletes meeting the guidelines. And the only way to do that is to hold athletes to the same SIGCOV standards as other biographies and not accept routine signing/match coverage or interviews as evidence of notability. But if editors continue insisting sports news "profiles" that are 70% quotes from the subject and three-paragraph injury reports contribute to notability then of course these "barely scraping by NSPORT" athletes will be kept and will be used as evidence that a guideline accurately predicts GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, re: interviews: our guideline on notability for people states A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Interviews are primary sources according to policy (which is reinforced at WP:PRIMARYNEWS), although historically if the interviewer provides significant analysis or background on the subject using info not derived from the interview, such a source may contribute to notability. In this case that's irrelevant since none of the refs contain such secondary commentary. JoelleJay (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectfully I don't think we can take from one word buried deep in the footnotes of the WP:NOR policy (pretty irrelevant here since there are no stated OR concerns) and say it renders all interview sources inadmissible in all AfD discussions. I mean, we are making good faith attempts to assess WP:N. Why deny ourselves some of the sources on this bizarre (and contentious) technicality? I've seen one or two others brandishing this supposed 'trump card' in deletion discussions for female athletes, so I know its not something you've just dreamed up yourself. But it's still in my opinion tenuous and kinda weird "wikilawyering" – trying to have perfectly good sources excluded instead of weighing them on their merits. It's really not even that deep. Any notable footballer will throw off coverage, yes some of it pretty WP:ROUTINE and some of it interviews in WP:RSs, as has happened here. A few of us obviously feel WP:GNG is met in this case. You're right about the 3-5 problematic editors, but if you want wider currency for this novel idea that interview sources shouldn't count then you should probably try taking that to a wider forum. Likewise if you want to RGW about the laughably low inclusion criteria for male footballers. However in the individual AfD discussions it's probably better for us to make our own assessments using the full picture of sources. That's what I did when arriving at my decision. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a novel interpretation of what sources are considered "primary" or "not independent" (I linked to the WP:NOR footnotes only because they demonstrate this topic has been discussed and researched extensively in the context of our PAGs). That interviews are not considered for notability purposes because they're primary and not independent is also not a technicality only invoked in female athlete discussions. This has been a pretty standard interpretation for a while now, and it makes sense: we can't claim biographical material directly provided by the subject themselves is independent, secondary coverage, and if that's the only way a particular source contains enough info to be significant then that source can't count towards GNG. This reasoning is pretty regularly and uncontroversially applied by admins and highly experienced editors in biography AfDs, e.g.,


 * Some examples from 2017-18:
 * this close from Spartaz
 * this nom from Magnolia677
 * comments by Sergecross73 here
 * this nom from Bearcat
 * this vote from Biruitorul
 * a comment from K.e.coffman here
 * this nom from Huon
 * Examples from the last few months:
 * this nom statement from Fences&Windows
 * this nom from Star Mississippi
 * this !vote from Hobit
 * this nom from Extraordinary Writ
 * this !vote from Isabelle Belato
 * this nom from Modussiccandi
 * the comments by Winged Blades of Godric here
 * the comments by Cassiopeia and Papaursa (and me) here
 * Zxcvbnm's !vote here
 * this nom and a comment by Robert McClenon


 * JoelleJay (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a novel interpretation because using it in this broad-brush way could render virtually all media coverage inadmissible for notability purposes. After all, any written or radio/TV coverage about someone will carry quotes from that person. As every journalist worth her salt knows: "If you haven't got quotes, you haven't got a story!" I appreciate this is obviously your hobby horse, but none of these examples are directly applicable here because they're not footballers or even sportspeople. I could find twice as many examples of cases where footballers have been kept, on the strength of the most pitifully execrable sources. Even some I've AfD'd myself: Articles for deletion/Geir Hasund. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The existence of a few quotes doesn't make coverage an interview. It's when the majority of the article is quotes, and/or when the only biographical information that isn't quotes is insignificant, that a source should be considered an interview.
 * I specifically used mostly examples outside of sports (although Antonio McKee is in MMA) to demonstrate this isn't an interpretation restricted to athlete bios, which shouldn't matter anyway since they are all ultimately subject to GNG.
 * Yes there are footballer articles kept based on garbage reasoning like "subject is young, they'll get capped and receive coverage soon enough", or "subject is in another country, we should wait until a future editor can confirm no coverage exists in local offline sources", or whatever. In the linked AfD no one offered any rebuttal to the provided sources, so it's not surprising it was kept... I only looked at the first two, and on the surface those articles look lengthy and direct, however no one bothered to translate Norwegian to see if they were truly independent SIGCOV. If they had, they'd have noticed that they're actually interviews, just in a non-English format (using dashes and guillemets), and therefore closer inspection of the authors' commentary would've been necessary to determine whether the articles could count towards GNG. FWIW, I would've !voted delete if I'd seen this AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How do these sources satisfy GNG when it's been established that those are press releases, run-of-the-mill, not independent, etc? Avilich (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus. Not sure if we will achieve one here this time but no harm in extending for a final week. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and in particular per all of JoelleJay's comments, including the enlightening exchange with Jogurney above. Yes, there is coverage. But no, it is not in-depth, and not sufficiently independent. I dispute the keep !votes with rationales such as "...GNG asks for multiple sources", "... subject is 18 years with an ongoing career." — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Having read through the discussion above, assessed the sources presented, and taking into account this footballer's young age and the inherent under-coverage of female footballers on WP and in media more broadly, I am inclined to side with Daz here and conclude that the subject passes WP:GNG. I'm perfectly fine also acknowledging that I come from an WP:Inclusionist perspective, especially on subjects that are structurally under-covered. Seany91 (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails GNG and NFOOTY. Nehme1499 10:09, 26 November 2021 (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.