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 keep‎. I see a consensus here to Keep this article but a disagreement over whether sources satisfy WP:BASIC. This same situation occurs on quite a lot of AFD discussions I review so it might be worth further discussion on a policy talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tjep Hoedemakers[edit]

Tjep Hoedemakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands. JTtheOG (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. (Update from weak keep to keep after examining several more match reports) This player was on the third place team for 2023 Men's FIH Hockey World Cup which suggests notability. Subject shows up in loads of match reports that cover snippets the subjects' actual play eg [1][2][3], there are many more. I think we can safely meet WP:BIO via If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability —siroχo 07:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I'm not mistaken, the part of that sentence you omitted ("trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability") means that trivial mentions cannot be combined to establish notability in the way you describe. Two of these three sources are from the International Hockey Federation, which wouldn't be independent anyways. Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies about the non-independent sources. There are quite a few independent sources out there [4][5][6][7]. You can click the "news" link in the the AFD template and add "-FIH" to find several more.

    I did not include the additional phrasing because these snippets of actual play are not trivial coverage as defined by WP:BASIC, rather they are short bits of coverage. Short does not mean trivial. Examples of trivial coverage from that page include birth certificates, 1-line entries on election ballots, and databases. This is different, it's actual coverage of impact the person had in their field. A single match report would not be enough, but taken together enough of them in independent reliable sources can fulfill WP:BASIC.

    We can see the logic behind WP:BASIC. 100 online database entries about an actor appearing in bit parts in film do not add together to create SIGCOV. 100 published match reports about different matches together create significant coverage.

    —siroχo 21:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Are these not just passing mentions, though? If a player has appeared in 100 Premier League matches and is mentioned in 100 different match reports, even if just once or twice per article, would that constitute the SIGCOV necessary for the player to meet GNG? This rule in BASIC is meant for sources with a little more meat on them, because imagine how many athletes have been mentioned in a couple of match reports over the years. That just cannot the intent. JTtheOG (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think passing mention would be a mention that was just "Tjep Hoedemakers said XYZ" because then the coverage is not about the subject, but actually about the statement. In these cases it's "short" coverage, but it's specifically about the subject.

      It's a balance. I fully agree that just a couple match reports would not constitute SIGCOV, nor would just being on the roster for 100 box scores (i.e db-entry-style trivial coverage). But I fully believe having your play briefly described in 100 independent match reports of high-level international play (or Premier League play, etc) would be enough. Where the balance lies is up to us to determine. It's fine for us to disagree about this specific subject.

      And if it helps, as I noted in my original !vote, I'm not going fully on count of match reports or anything, either. In this case the 3rd place finish in a major international competition is a sign of notability, and finding a significant number of match reports describing the player's play confirms it for me. —siroχo 22:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      I suppose we have found the point where we do not fully agree. Regardless, I am happy to go with the consensus. Cheers! JTtheOG (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep lots of coverage in Dutch which appears to satisfy GNG. [8] [9] [10] [11] SportingFlyer T·C 13:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The first two are clearly not independent, the third is a video of a goal he scored, and the fourth is a routine match report with one mention of the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources identified and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Many sources have been identified. Would you mind specifying which would be the top two or three? JTtheOG (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Until now there are three keeps under this nomination. One corrected from weak keep. Wikipedia suffers from excessive AfDs. People nominate WAY too much. This pulls valuable resources away from the article space. Starting a discussion with each user, who does not subscribe to your opinion, taken into full account after closely studying the intro and as many other relevant facts as possible, does not improve this situation. To put it mildly. WP:BLUDGEON advises against this. gidonb (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply; I acknowledge your point. I usually don't comment on my own AfDs, nor should I. At the same time, many (most?) SNGs were deprecated, leaving thousands of sports articles which no longer meet WP's notability requirements. In lieu of mass deletions which obviously would not work, individual nominations are the only recourse to address this disparity. The bundling of mentions in match reports in this specific case just seems like such a stretch from the intent of the rule, IMO, but I digress. Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2023 (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.