Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia van Oosterwijck

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. If even a substantial effort toward improvement wasn't able to find clear-cut evidence of notability, that strengthens the "delete" arguments substantially. Improvement in and of itself isn't a very strong argument to keep, absent direct evidence of meeting an applicable notability threshold. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia van Oosterwijck[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, i.e. no independent, reliable sources giving significant attention to her. Nothing substantial in Google News[1] (two hits from her club, so not independent, and 3 truly passing mentions (name in list). The 77 Google hits gave no better results, the only thing I could find was this local story[2], the remainder are wiki-based sites, stats, and other similar stuff which doesn't give any notability. Fram (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. Fram (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep female Aussie footballer played at highest level. needs improvement, not deletion. --SuperJew (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP is irrelevant here if you can't establish notability based on sources, not based on arbitrary "played at level X" statements. Fram (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the retirement of the old WP:NAFL subject notability guideline, a single game played does not establish automatic notability anymore. All references in this page are WP:ROUTINE (one primary bio from the club, then routine coverage of the three things any player will have: drafting, debut and retirement), and having retired after one game there is no reasonable prospect of two new non-routine references ever being found. Therefore fails WP:GNG. Aspirex (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't necessarily agree with Asperix that coverage of drafting, debuts and retirement should be considered routine generally speaking, for many players the coverage is much more substantial, but there has simply been no significant coverage for van Oosterwijck. Even if NAFL were still in place it would be difficult to justify continuing its presumption of notability in this case. Best sources I could find that haven't been mentioned already: 1, 2 – Teratix ₵ 13:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbsy's sources are an improvement but still fall short of the GNG standard. EFNL's own report, website, and match results are not independent sources. The Monash Leader may be more substantial but there is still WP:YOUNGATH to consider. Even assuming the best case scenario that their coverage contributes to GNG, we would still need multiple independent sources to justify keeping the article. – Teratix ₵ 03:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree references fall within WP:ROUTINE. As with Teratix, a search was unable to find unearth significant coverage to enable WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really didn't wanna see the loss of a professional player's article just for lack of trying, so I put a couple of hours' worth of work into this today. She was clearly a decorated junior and picked up the sport quite easily, to the point where she won multiple premierships and a league best and fairest award. I sourced the Leader articles through the State Library Victoria newspaper search function, which unfortunately can't be linked directly via WP. Hopefully there's enough info there now to justify keeping the article. As an aside, it seems a real shame she left the sport – she seems too good not to be playing. Gibbsy^spin 02:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete, the new references and history extensively covers football from ages 14 to 18 via club or local news sources. Applying WP:YOUNGATH, van Oosterwijck still falls short of GNG in my view. Aspirex (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well there’s two hours I won’t get back. Gibbsy^spin 02:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources about her apart from the Monash Leader? This looks like a very small, ultra-local newspaper (Monash has some 5000 inhabitants?), not the kind that gives sufficient notability. What do you feel are the best sources in the article to establish notability? Fram (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The additional sources provided by Gibbsy move this from a delete to the side of keeping. Deus et lex (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Retired after one game, fails notability Nzs9 (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Fails WP:BLP1E. One game = one event.4meter4 (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.