- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The outcome of this request for deletion was to 
Keep. Has multiple sources now, which look reliable. No longer see a reason to delete.--Eptalon (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Jan Koster
[change source]- Jan Koster (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
MathXplore has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Contested QD and notability disputed. Hard to find sources because the name is same with a linguist. Author claims there are many sources but most of the sources at here come from Nieuwsblad van het Noorden. MathXplore (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.
Discussion
[change source]- Keep (per GNG) — Koster played in the highest Dutch league and was a “known player” according to the Encyclopedia of Drenthe (read here). Meeting GNG as he had coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, see for instance the Nieuwsblad van het Noorden articles in the articles. More sources can be found in Dutch Newspapers. In the limited amount of newspapers Delpher has there are for example 231 newspaper article hits with Jan Koster volleybal and 378 hits with Jan Koster SFC. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do not understand why having many citations from Nieuwsblad van het Noorden is a problem. Named in the article title and covered steadily from the 70s through to 90s, so not a one off. May just be the most accessible source for citations. Keep. --Gotanda (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Having citations from Nieuwsblad van het Noorden is not a problem, but having sources from only one source could be a problem. MathXplore (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is not the issue how I interpreted your request. However, I added sources including of the main national news sources (De Volkskrant, Algemeen Dagblad and NRC Handelsblad. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Having citations from Nieuwsblad van het Noorden is not a problem, but having sources from only one source could be a problem. MathXplore (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete Based on the article, there is little to support him being notable. There is nothing as a footballer. I would question if that should even be in the intro as it is not anything he is known for. He has extensive professional volleyball experience. This is good but nothing is said about any awards. He refused to be on the national team which would have been a strong push for notability. As a coach, there is no indication that the team he coached did anything. As a pub owner... he served beer? nothing there. All told, I don't feel his notability is established. Pure Evil (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Pure Evil: Why must he have won awards? GNG is about coverage, not about achievements. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- He doesn't need awards. He also doesn't need an article. GNG is about notability. Achievements help support notability. coverage can be fake, bought, biased etc. A person can have 1000 references and still not be notable. Articles with a host of references are deleted regularly because the person has not done anything to make themself notable. A leader of a winning team or the person selected as most valuable for a team or tournament is less likely to have false notability. This is the case in most areas. An Academy Award winning actor is more likely to be notable that a costar in a B movie. Not always, but more likely. That award is more likely to garner them notability. A Grammy Award winning rapper is most likely to be famous than someone on a local label. The accolades are not essential but they do tend to help demonstrate notability. Coverage is only part of being notable. Actually being involved in something also needs to exist. In this case: played football as a kid, played in local leagues - in the plus column here- but was not a member of the national team, coached a non-descript team with no notable outcome and owned a business. Only one of those is remotely notable and no added push is provided to set him apart from a hundred thousand other people. That one point may be enough for a keep for some. IMO, a little more is needed. Of course, the poor presentation of the article doesn't help either. While not a reason to delete it, it does color the article poorly and will always have some degree of an effect on the reader. This will normally cause a review of the article to be taken in a less flattering manner. A polished turd is still a turd but a polished rock. while not a gem, is now a shiny stone. This article is certainly far from a turd, but is not a shiny rock and definitely not a gemstone. Pure Evil (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Pure Evil: WP:GNG: notabele is good coverage: “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.” besides of that see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes point 4: “Sports people may be notable if they have played for a team in a national level competition”. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- You'll have to forgive me for questioning it a defunct newspaper with a history of selling out its morals with the prevailing wind is reliable. They had a choice. They chose to publish what they did. As I have little faith in anyone who promoted anti-Semitism, I don't find your references to be reliable and therefore they do not show presumed notability. If I have issues with seeing MSNBC, Fox and CNN as reliable sources, not trusting something with their record is child's play.
- As to note 4 : "May be" not "are". Just because it is possible does not make it true. I may have green hair. I did in the past and is is possible. It is not true though. The fact that "he may be notable" is not the same as "He is notable".
- Again: I do not think there is adequate proof that this person is notable enough to inclusion. IMO, this article should be deleted it has not been demonstrated that the subject has done anything that makes them different from thousands of others. Pure Evil (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t see any evidence Nieuwsblad van het Noorden doesn’t meet the GNG requirements during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. (Decade(s) later in 2002 the press merged its seperate newspapers into Dagblad van het Noorden due to subscriber loss) SportsOlympic (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
- ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
- I don’t see any evidence Nieuwsblad van het Noorden doesn’t meet the GNG requirements during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. (Decade(s) later in 2002 the press merged its seperate newspapers into Dagblad van het Noorden due to subscriber loss) SportsOlympic (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Pure Evil: WP:GNG: notabele is good coverage: “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.” besides of that see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes point 4: “Sports people may be notable if they have played for a team in a national level competition”. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- He doesn't need awards. He also doesn't need an article. GNG is about notability. Achievements help support notability. coverage can be fake, bought, biased etc. A person can have 1000 references and still not be notable. Articles with a host of references are deleted regularly because the person has not done anything to make themself notable. A leader of a winning team or the person selected as most valuable for a team or tournament is less likely to have false notability. This is the case in most areas. An Academy Award winning actor is more likely to be notable that a costar in a B movie. Not always, but more likely. That award is more likely to garner them notability. A Grammy Award winning rapper is most likely to be famous than someone on a local label. The accolades are not essential but they do tend to help demonstrate notability. Coverage is only part of being notable. Actually being involved in something also needs to exist. In this case: played football as a kid, played in local leagues - in the plus column here- but was not a member of the national team, coached a non-descript team with no notable outcome and owned a business. Only one of those is remotely notable and no added push is provided to set him apart from a hundred thousand other people. That one point may be enough for a keep for some. IMO, a little more is needed. Of course, the poor presentation of the article doesn't help either. While not a reason to delete it, it does color the article poorly and will always have some degree of an effect on the reader. This will normally cause a review of the article to be taken in a less flattering manner. A polished turd is still a turd but a polished rock. while not a gem, is now a shiny stone. This article is certainly far from a turd, but is not a shiny rock and definitely not a gemstone. Pure Evil (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Pure Evil: Why must he have won awards? GNG is about coverage, not about achievements. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
*::::::
Delete I also cannot find any sources that talk about him. The articles linked do not show any notoriety that I feel meet WP:N. Perhaps if better sources were found that show him in the spotlight winning medals from the Olympics or something that is major to the Dutch countries it would meet the requirements. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 04:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Pure Evil:, @PotsdamLamb: you may like I added a national newspaper source (NRC Handelsblad) stating in 1982 he was one of the best libero of the Netherlands ever. A Sentence from the article (literally translated): “In fact, we only have had one setter in the Netherlands, where you couldn't tell where the ball was going: Jan Koster from Groningen.”. I also added some more sources. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep Since this article has been expanded and has more references, I feel we can keep it so I have struck out my vote to delete and changed it to a keep. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 19:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
This request is due to close on 05:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.