Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbert Barendse

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. Editors are allowed to argue against existing guidelines when it is clear to them applying the guidelines goes against WP:COMMONSENSE. However, AfD is not the place to argue the guidelines themselves, and a very compelling argument must be made that a guideline should be bypassed. (That goes for both keep and delete !votes, by the way). However, consensus is that this topic does not meet NFOOTY, (or GNG) and therefore does not warrant encyclopedic attention. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robbert Barendse[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)

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:BASIC // Timothy :: talk 05:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He meets WP:NFOOTBALL by making three appearances for a senior national team (bonaire) in the concacaf nations league, which is a regional confederation. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his 3 appearances were classed as 'Non FIFA' according to this, so he actually fails WP:NFOOTBALL. More importantly he fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:NFOOTY. Under the first part of NFOOTY, it states "Players who have played in...a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA..."; his appearances for Bonaire in the CONCACAF Nations League meet this requirement. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if he passes our football notability requirements they are absurdly broad and allow way too many people who lack sourcing to pass under truly too low notability criteria, and they should not be slavishly followed in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NFOOTY with CONCACAF appearances - User:GiantSnowman might want to look at this again. User:Johnpacklambert, you are supposed to judge notability by the guidelines, not simply vote delete because you don't like the guidelines - that would be WP:POINTy, and surely any editor who keeps doing that should be topic-banned from the area of AFDs. There are other forums here to discuss changing the guidelines, if you have suggestions on how to improve them. Nfitz (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The football guidelines are junk guidelines that make people who cannot in any way pass GNG notable for no reason at all. They are too broad and need to be scrapped because they are wrong. Anyway you are misinterpreting the guidelines. They in no way require that we keep every single article that falls within them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are required to respect guidelines, whether you think them to be junk or not. Your lack of competence in the area of AFDs has been well documented in your topic ban. If you think this is the rare exception where an international player shouldn't have an article, you need to explain in detail why this is the case ... not just say "I don't like the rules". Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Reply: One thing I will change is not using WP:NFOOTBALL interchangably with WP:NSPORT.

I don't believe Wikipedia should be a repository of non-notable stubs because they are presumed to be notable. Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary. It's an encyclopedia and these stubs provide no WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT.

I think how notability should be applied in these cases is a good conversation to have. Maybe I am wrong, but maybe I'm correct.

To address issues:

WP:BEFORE has been done. It has turned up no WP:RS to establish notability. I don't see anyone that has added a RS to indicate my BEFORE was faulty (perhaps they did and I haven't seen it since I last looked). See below regarding NFOOTBALL and as I stated above I should not have been using NFOOTBALL and NSPORT interchangeably.
The core question here is if a person meets WP:NFOOTBALL, does that mean there notability is automatically established and cannot be questioned based on the lack of RS? or I am interpreting WP:N, WP:SNG, and WP:NSPORT and presumption correctly and it's valid to bring up the question of notability here.

WP:N states "A topic is presumed to merit an article..." Presumed is defined in the link as "a rebuttable presumption ... is an assumption made by a court that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise". I am coming forward to contest the notability of these articles based on a lack of WP:RS showing notability.
From WP:N (WP:NRV) (a guideline that applies to all subjects) "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". The evidence (WP:RS) must show the individual is notable. I don't believe that evidence exists and the presumption, in this case, is incorrect.
Just because WP:NFOOTBALL says someone can be "presumed notable" does not guarantee they are notable, nor does it say that editors cannot question this presumption of notability. A presumption is an assumption that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it. WP:NFOOTBALL is not a trump card that automatically overrules all other guidelines and makes article notability immune from scrutiny.
From WP:SNG "a presumption is neither a guarantee that sources can be found" and therefore it is not a guarantee the topic is notable, "nor a mandate for a separate page." A separate page is not mandatory for a topic just because of a presumption.

"If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria". "it is likely" does not mean there always are sufficient sources. It is also possible that sufficient sources do not exist to establish notability. Therefore if someone comes forward to question the presumption of notability, it can be discussed and the article deleted if the presumption is found to be wrong due to the lack of WP:RS establishing notability.

Per WP:NSPORT "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." Even if an article meets WP:NFOOTBALL that does not mean it must be kept. If there are reasons, such as a lack of RS, then an article can be deleted.

I was thinking about writing an RFC to ask about clarifying that a presumption of notability can be questioned based on the lack of RS showing notability so that this is no longer a matter for debate. If the RFC is written (I'm not sure I want to be pummeled by the football team), this might be a good opening comment. I was also thinking about writing an RFC to ask about revising the exceedingly low standard set in WP:NFOOTBALL since I believe its standard is allowing too many non-notable articles to exist. Together these two RFCs might be a good starting point for removing a good number of non-notable articles. // Timothy :: talk 12:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about amateur footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Yes, Vice.com published an article he wrote that details his exploits in Bonaire, but this coverage is not independent of the subject (he wrote it). Article fails all of our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Has a player with senior international caps ever been deleted before? Dougal18 (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly they have, even for footballers who appeared in FIFA "A" internationals like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe. Barendse hasn't even played in a FIFA "A" international. Jogurney (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. More importantly he fails WP:GNG - basically no RS on him. 07:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable appearances because Bonaire is not a fully FIFA member so fails FOOTBALL and NSPORT. doktorb _words^deeds 07:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Doktorb above Spiderone 10:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original nomination, and the nominator's detailed explanation of why this subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion above. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 12:37, 19 August 2020 (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.