Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatah Ahamada

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. The "delete" side argues persuasively that the sources presented are insufficient; the "keep" side for the most part does not engage with their arguments. Sandstein 06:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatah Ahamada

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

Fatah Ahamada (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)

No coverage found beyond routine database listings. Rusalkii (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nominator has agreed that this is a good source, and thus
    WP:SPORTBASIC is met. Then - instead of arguing here with non-existent black-and-white rules about just one reference - simply get another one - like this - and now GNG and NSPORT are both met. Nfitz (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Looks to be past-tense to me other than the odd metaphor. Before I pull out my Bescherelle, can you point to the conjugation that concerns you? When ROUTINE discusses sports matches, it's telling us that we shouldn't be writing articles about an individual sports match.
WP:ROUTINE contains examples about what shouldn't have articles. It's not a discussion of whether the source can or can't be used as a GNG source for another subject - such as a player, or an incident during a match (say for example a fire when much of the stadium burns down). Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
jfc... ROUTINE is mostly concerned with whether an event merits an article, but it also literally defines sports matches (and their coverage) as routine, and that designation is used by NSPORT in its descriptions of what type of coverage is considered insufficient for GNG. This is not difficult to understand! JoelleJay (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm,
WP:CIVIL? Even an interjection seems unnecessary. Also you are dodging the question; what was the verb tense that gave you concern? Nfitz (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Go ahead and take me to ANI if you think that's a bannable offense.
The match report features multiple instances of present tense commentary, as you know, that is strongly suggestive of first-person primary reporting. L’ailier comorien a-t-il fait faute ou non sur Rafael Fiorèse dans sa course au départ de l’action? Lui assure que non, le Champagnou estime que oui, et M. Criblet a pris sa décision: jouez! But even if it's secondary, it is still routine coverage as defined by ROUTINE and as explicitly rejected by NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And even if such a source was accepted, it still doesn't offer SIGCOV, especially not of anything encyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to ascertain what the meaning was other than Jesus Fucking Christ; I'd hoped you'd have told me that it was some kind of reference to something like
WP:SPORTBASIC - which nonetheless is met with the other reference, as SPORTBASIC notes Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Nfitz (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • None of the pillars forbid swearing, much less common expressions of exasperation.
  • "Subjunctive" isn't a tense; "Lui assure que non" is in présent tense with subjonctif mood; if it was passé it would be "ait (or a) assuré".
  • SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source, but as explicitly said in the very next sentence that you omitted, that is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. This has been explained to you many, many times, including by admins, e.g.
    WP:ROUTINE
    in the third bullet.
Your continued disruption at AfDs, wasting everyone's time with the same repeatedly rejected arguments, is far more deserving of a ban than any "swearing", and I would ask @Liz or whoever closes this to please take this into consideration. JoelleJay (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Swearing at another user, simply because they think you are wrong, is most certainly a much worse offence than pointing out the fallacies in your argument - fallacies that I've pointed out in the past multiple times, and you still argue otherwise. I think we are done here, unless you want to
WP:BIAS by going this far for a player that clearly has one GNG source, and has other borderline sources - I still don't see how the use of the subjunctive makes this a primary source, whether it be tense, tone, or mood. Nfitz (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion is still occurring right now. It's hard to close a discussion when participants have different understandings of what a valid source establishing notability is. Sources are presented and then are accepted by some editors as establishing GNG while they are rejected by others as not. Can we come to some agreement about definitions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Delete based on current sourcing. I'm really on the fence. [4] is by far the best current source, and clearly passes the
    WP:100WORDS essay, but half of it is quotes from the subject. With the additonal commentary, I'd still say it's a GNG source, maybe 4/5 of one. [5] is an interview with zero independent commentary—not enough to count toward GNG. [6] is okay, clearly independent, although rather routine likely unreliable. What brings me to delete is that this player hasn't played a game at the national level since 2018. If he plays some more games at the national level and receives additional coverage, that should be enough for recreation. Ovinus (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Hi @Ovinus, just a note that I'm pretty sure comorosfootball.com is a group blog focused on hyping Comorian football, rather than professional journalism, per their "about" section: "We are young people who have given themselves the courage and love to serve our nation and support our football institutions by informing while promoting Comorian football locally and internationally. Our actions gained momentum in 2014 with our social media presence first on Facebook and then on Twitter before starting to write our first blog posts a year later." JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I guess I was too trusting, thanks. Adjusted accordingly. Ovinus (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Only one significant source has been identified and GNG requires multiple. Alvaldi (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I found three good sources among many many other French sources, also article has been vastly expanded by Robby.is.on and I, which took some time. To the closer, keep in mind the nominator (Rusalkii) themselves has essentially rescinded their nomination and expressed the desire to keep the article, as well as the fact that there are 2+ more keep votes than delete (3+ if you count the nominators statement expressing their desire to keep the article, which leaves 8 keep votes and 5 delete at the time of writing). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely did not find "three good sources". This is pure Q&A interview, which you know is unacceptable, and this has three scattered sentences on him in a group blog post: obviously not SIGCOV in RS. JoelleJay (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz Note that consensus in AfD is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and is not calculated solely by number of votes. The closing admin should also note that @JoelleJay assesment on the sources is spot on.
  • This Q&A interview includes no independent commentary and thus is a primary source as the information in it about the subject comes from the subject himself.
  • This Comorosfootball source, which according to their own site is a blog, only states that he scored a goal for a new club and thus is not a significant source.
  • The laregion.ch source is a routine match report that does not count towards GNG per
    WP:NSPORTS
    .
  • The 24heures.ch source is the only
    WP:GNG
    , he needs to have multiple significant sources.
These assesments have not been refuted by the Keep !voters. Alvaldi (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails
    WP:SIGCOV per the convincing source analysis above. The subject lack multiple independent indepth coverage in RS.4meter4 (talk) 15:45, 6 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fatah_Ahamada&oldid=1114577049"