Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Nelemans

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. ✗plicit 00:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Nelemans

[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)

Nelemans spent his entire career at amateur levels before apparently retiring in 2013. Secondary source analysis from my search:

Omroep Brabant: Transfer rumor
Eindhovens Dagblat: Managerial announcement
Amateur Voetbal Eindhoven: Interview with small independent analysis and seems to be a local source.
Algemeen Dagblad: Paywalled and only contains him in an image caption.

None of those references contain significant coverage that are required for Wikipedia. Corresponding article on Dutch Wikipedia is just an unsourced dumping ground.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article on nl.wiki also doesn't bring anything promising. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned that. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 228 apps and 51 goals in the Dutch professional second division, there will be offline sources out there, per WP:COMMONSENSE. There are sufficient online sources that WP:HEY will apply. Giant Snowman 15:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I agree with GiantSnowman above. This player had a long career in a professional league at the dawn of the internet age. WP:COMMONSENSE indeed applies. The article itself is awful, for the record, but that's no matter. Anwegmann (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't say that! It's no matter if you are not the subject of an inaccurate and unsourced biography of a living person on English Wikipedia. It's quite another matter if you are such a person. The subject is a human being who we have reason to think is alive; a crappy article about them makes them look crappy to everybody who doesn't know them. I'll concede en.wiki often keeps awful articles about lots of subjects, but not so many unsourced BLPs. We've had many meta-discussions on this sort of subject and SPORTSPERSON was the guideline we settled upon. We have mere statistics presented. Zero SIGCOV? Delete. BusterD (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? I'm not sure I'm following you here. As far as my understanding is concerned, the quality of the article itself is not what we discuss here. So here, the fact that the article is awful is indeed no matter. The fact that the article is unsourced currently also does not mean it is incapable of being sourced. The timing of this person's career makes it such that there is very likely WP:SIGCOV somewhere, possibly outside the reach of digital searches. Thus the reliance on WP:COMMONSENSE. Anwegmann (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a car wash or a golf club, you'd have a case. This is a living human. English Wikipedia contributors agreed to SPORTSPERSON as a compromise with sports enthusiasts over this kind of stats-only BLP violation. This type of article was discussed at some length. COMMONSENSE was brought up then. WP:SPORTSPERSON was the agreement. If all you can verify is stats, delete. We have insufficient RS to create an article about a living person. BusterD (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a strange point. There are no verifiability problems, nor are the sources "stats only", nor are the sources unreliable. But there is a big in-depth question. Geschichte (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BusterD's words are harsh but true. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SPORTSPERSON requires at least one source which directly details. Failing that, this is an uncited BLP. BusterD (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even adding only one source that actually contains significant coverage is still not enough to demonstrate notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment: fwiw I also found [1] [2] [3] Geschichte (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second looks somewhat decent to me, but others are routine coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appeal to WP:HEY requires some article improvement. As it stands we are a week in to this AfD and there is not suitable sourcing. Note that the news reporting mentioned by the nom. is, in fact, primary sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:RS citations, which are required for consideration of qualifications for an article. Go4thProsper (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2025 (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.