Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yassine Tekfaoui

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.

Yassine Tekfaoui

Yassine Tekfaoui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Maybe a case of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Tekfaoui has played in the Eerste Divisie! Source. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - a nominal amount of play (coming on as a 90+1 substitute) is not sufficient when GNG is failed. GiantSnowman 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NFOOTY

. Doesn't matter how many minutes he's played, he has featured in a professional game of football. Say he comes on as a 90th minute sub in Jong Ultrecht's next game, is he then eligible for a page? Because he's played in two games? What is the cutoff point? Are we going to start counting minutes for players?

You have created numerous pages for players with a very very small amount of appearances, and those players are either retired or dead. Tekfaoui is eighteen and playing for Ultrecht. There is a high chance he will make another appearance in professional football, unlike Terry Regan (footballer), who, at 93, most likely will not. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick search, here is a list of players I found that you created, who only have one appearance to their name:

• John Murphy (1900s footballer)
• Frank Newton (defender, born 1902)
• Thomas Pashley
• Mike Pamment
• Ronald Patrick (footballer)
• Terry Regan (footballer)
• John McMorran
• Jason Jarvis

The interesting thing about Jason Jarvis is that he only has two minutes of professional football to his name, which came while he was playing for Falkirk. Care to explain how Jarvis is any different to Tekfaoui? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is always GNG - NFOOTBALL is just a presumption. There is plenty of AFD consensus which shows that technically meeting NFOOTBALL is insufficient if GNG is failed. PS please stop stalking me, it's weird. GiantSnowman 12:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed some of the AFDs in question, it seems like I had forgotten that young players at the start of their career are given more leeway. As this applies here, I change my !vote to keep. GiantSnowman 12:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I resent that remark, I just had a quick look through the archive of new articles. I'm always interested in the new articles created, and I knew I'd seen some players with only a handful of pro appearances. Glad you changed your vote. :) Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete This "young players at the start of their career are given more leeway" rubbish needs to stop. Wikipedia is not supposed to jump the gun and create articles on people who may one day be notable. We need articles on people who are already notable and early career figures who have not received signficant coverage are inherently non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: by this logic, most of the articles ever created for football players would be deleted. Most players who played before the late 90s would have hardly any coverage, as would most international players at lower-ranked FIFA teams. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be a good thing. We need to end having articles on subjects that are not sourced to the level of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but that would be hundreds of thousands of pages deleted. I think the majority of Wikipedia would disagree with you. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article about footballer who made a single substitute's appearance in the Dutch second-level football league (after the 90th minute) and which comprehensively fails the GNG. There is longstanding consensus that the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL is invalid when the GNG cannot be met (there is simply no online coverage of this footballer that could be used to write an article except a match report, transfer announcement and database entry - all of which are the most superficial of coverage). His appearance came in early December 2019, and one would expect some coverage if this person was notable (I don't believe the rather dubious "early in his or her career" reasoning applies here). Jogurney (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Possibly a case of
  talk) 21:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep passes
  WP:NFOOTY and subject is 18 years old with an ongoing career see little point deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - meets NFOOTY - and a young player with long career ahead. Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Do any of the !keep voters mind addressing the GNG? It's absolutely clear that the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL isn't valid when the GNG cannot be met. Jogurney (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you are getting that interpretation,

WP:SNG where it clearly says that "A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article". I don't think it gets clearer than that. So what are you seeing that clearly says the opposite. Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The lead of NSPORTS says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Is that not clear? Jogurney (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's clear that reliable sources are needed. And reliable sources are in this article - so what User:Jogurney is the issue? It doesn't say that GNG must be met. I agree though - no reliable sources, no article Nfitz (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Mellor is one fairly recent example of consensus on how NFOOTBALL is applied to a footballer when GNG is comprehensively failed (there are hundreds of similar AfDs that have reached the same conclusion over the past 2 years). Please let me know and I can point you to them (there are a bunch listed at User:Levivich/NFooty AfDs). Jogurney (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG isn't comprehensively failed here. There are links to reliable, secondary sources.

talk) 23:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Jogurney, you yourself commented in that AFD that " we have only been able to produce two sentences about his career (all of which is sourced to a single online database)", and we were clearly failing the requirement to have reliable sources. How does that compare to this situation, where we do have multiple reliable sources? Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:FOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure why
  WP:NSPORTS it clearly says that "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". As reliable sources have been provided that NFOOTY has been met, then GNG is not relevant, and it's not worth anyone's time researching further. Please close asap. Nfitz (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There's 5 keeps, 3 deletes including the nom. Please:

1. review your understanding of the notion of consensus, preferably with reference to your recent comments on my talk page when AfD didn't go your way
2. stop making subjective comments such as "he has a long career ahead of him" as if it means something, start talking sources
3. never, ever use the phrase "GNG is not relevant" in any discussion about anything to do with notability, for reasons too obvious to need stating. Fenix down (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are highly biased in the area of Football, and quite frankly, you need to stop closing AFDs for football players - they are only a small fraction of AFDs, and perhaps you should avoid areas where you have bias. One doesn't count votes. One ways arguments - and GNG argument is not relevant, given that SNG is met. Please close this now. Nfitz (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't know the relevance of other AFDs. In the one, you've completely ignored my comments for days. In the other, the issue wasn't "consensus", it was that the three deletes, didn't address the article changes, and addition/reference of GNG sources. One said that the GNG was only local - not explaining what that even means with national coverage. The other two simply said "per nom", apparently ignoring the significant changes since the nomination. Nfitz (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please restrict your comments to sources that indicate how GNG is established given that NFOOTY is a presumption of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already pointed out User:Fenix down, linked and quoted guidelines showing that GNG is not necessary, if SNG is met. Please show guidelines or policy where it says otherwise. There's no need to spend so much time chasing GNG on people meeting SNG. Everyone's time would be better served by following the clear black line that invalidates any delete votes. Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG provides a presumption (meaning it is rebuttable) and there is longstanding consensus that this article represents a common situation where the presumption can be rebutted and is invalid. I've added a table below to discuss whether the presumption of notability is indeed invalid. Jogurney (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The long-standing consensus is generally for retired players, who played a few minutes, with little coverage other than stats. On those 3 criteria, we are 0 for 3 in this case. I thought we also had a long-standing consensus that we don't create articles for players on fully-professional teams until they get their first appearance. More to the point. Nfitz (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you looked at the AfDs I linked to, but they don't support the "retired" criteria you listed at all. The two things they all have in common: (1) minimal play in a fully-pro league (this article meets that); and (2) comprehensive failure of the GNG (this article also meets that - see below if you disagree). Jogurney (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I saw that you'd linked was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Mellor where some delete votes said that it didn't meet NFOOTY, and some questioned if Division 4 was even fully-profesional in 1980. Furthermore the player has (presumably!) retired, and the closing statement didn't opine. I don't see how it's comparable to this situation. Nfitz (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you'd find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sawyer Gaffney or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glauver Aranha Pinheiro more palatable. Any article here can be deleted for failing GNG even if it passes any one of our many SNGs, I don't know how this has just come up now. SportingFlyer T·C 05:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Since SFletcher06 has asserted that the article may satisfy the GNG (thank you for doing so), I decided to create a table to help us discuss whether it does. Please see below. Jogurney (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://www.ijsselmeervogels.nl/nieuws/jeugd/yassine-tekfaoui-naar-fc-utrecht	IJsselmeervogels is an amateur football club which trained Tekfaoui as a youth	The football club has expertise on its own youth players	? The source discusses the subject directly but not in much detail (it is a fairly routine announcement that one of the club's players has signed with a professional club)	✘ No
https://www.elfvoetbal.nl/binnenland/277672/deel-5-deze-jeugdspelers-kloppen-op-de-deur-bij-fc-utrecht	ELF Voetbal is an independent magazine published in the Netherlands	ELF Voetbal is a monthly football magazine (it claims to be the largest in the Netherlands)	? The source does not discuss the subject directly (he is one of four of Utrecht's youth players covered) and not in great detail (a single paragraph of text)	? Unknown
https://utrecht.nieuws.nl/sport/73568/fc-utrecht-legt-amersfoorter-yassine-tekfaoui-vast/	utrecht.nieuws.nl appears to be an independent news website based in Utrecht	? I am unable to determine the website's publishing standards or expertise	The sources discusses the subject directly but not in great detail (a routine transfer announcement)	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Interesting - I haven't checked any sources ... because it's not necessary as

WP:SNG has been met. Nfitz (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment SNGs including
  WP:NCRIC exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG." An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs " particularly for a player currently playing and only 17 years old and has made his debut this season on 7th December 2019 before Covid 19 issues.Note if he had been injured or retired it was different but not for one who is currently playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Pharaoh of the Wizards Let me emphasise something there: that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides an indication that the subject probably passes the GNG - they are only placeholders for the GNG, and passing the GNG is what ultimately counts. PJvanMill (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or draftify Fails the GNG. The ELF Voetbal article is not quite what I would call significant coverage, just one paragraph (also does not look like a generally reliable source to me, but that is a superficial judgement), and we need significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. PJvanMill (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SNG is met.

WP:BASIC is also met with "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". We have multiple independent sources that can be combined to demonstrate notability. What is the issue here? Nfitz (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Draftify. Upcoming young player with a single match meeting NFOOTY who might well meet GNG in the near future. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are the first person User:No Great Shaker to claim that NFOOTY hasn't been met. Can you expand on that, given even the previous delete votes acknowledge that NFOOTY and SNG is met. Also, how is BASIC not met? Nfitz (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Nfitz. I forgot that the Netherlands has two pro leagues, though I'm well aware of the fact. He does meet the minimum qualification for SNG but I am not convinced he meets GNG yet, regardless of any arguments about BASIC. GNG overrides all other considerations and I still think draftifying is the best option for the present; I do not agree with deletion. I've amended my previous entry. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SNG literally says that GNG doesn't have to be met. There are multiple reliable sources. Nfitz (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not literally say that at all. What is does say is:

"These subject-specific notability guidelines are generally derived based on verifiable criteria due to accomplishment or recognition in that field that either in-depth, independent sourcing likely exists for that topic but may take time and effort to locate. Thus, we allow for the standalone article on the presumption that meeting the SNG criteria will guarantee the existence or creation of enough coverage to meet GNG. (But)... in cases where GNG has not been met and a subject's claim to meeting an SNG is weak or subjective, the article may still be deleted or merged: a presumption is neither a guarantee that sources can be found nor a mandate for a separate page".

As far as Tekfaoui is concerned, his SNG qualification is weak (one second tier match only) and there is no sign as yet of the significant coverage demanded by the GNG. As such, the article is by no means a definite keep but I personally think it may become one very soon after football returns to normal and so I believe draftify to be the best option. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why User:No Great Shaker did you go out of your way to redact the most relevant piece of what you quoted? I've highlighted he sentence you redacted: "A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article. Note, however, that in cases where GNG has not been met and a subject's claim to meeting an SNG is weak or subjective, the article may still be deleted. SNG is met - there's no doubt that he has played, and no shortage of reliable sources that both confirm that, and give enough information about the player to write a (short) article. Even those supporting deletion indicate that one of the references is borderline on GNG itself! (personally, I haven't checked any references, as there's no need to, meeting SNG). Nfitz (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have missed the point I was making. No Great Shaker (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm really not sure what to do with this one - he technically passes the SNG albeit barely, he probably passes GNG albeit barely, he's an active player, he's probably still TOOSOON. I don't mind either keeping or drafting this, and if it's kept we should be allowed to review this one again if he never plays another minute of pro football or receives any further coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 04:53, 16 June 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.