Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afeez Olawale Oladipo

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afeez Olawale Oladipo

[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)

COntested PROD with no reason given. Original rationale still stand, namely: subject fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Sources provided in the article amount to nothing more than routine transfer talk and match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Every club he has played for is fully professional and biggest in the country. Bengali league is on neither list at WP:FPL either.Abcmaxx (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the clubs he has played for are in a WP:FPL, so he thus fails WP:NFOOTY. As nom states, the sources are all WP:ROUTINE, so he fails WP:GNG as well. 21.colinthompson (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. @Abcmaxx: please brush up on notability before !voting. Giant Snowman 11:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:GiantSnowman thanks for the backhanded dig at me, then again it's not the first time either Abcmaxx (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "backhanded dig" at all - consider it 'constructive criticism' instead. You need to brush up on notability, your views are simply wrong. Giant Snowman 12:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely backhanded dig, your criticism is neither constructive nor helpful and it shows a pattern of routine general incivility and aggressiveness towards me on at every opportunity you get Abcmaxx (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comments from GS are perfectly valid and it is right where editors make errors in interpretation of notability guidelines that these are pointed out, partocularly when the editor in question has been around long enough to be expected to have strong knowledge of the guidelines go earning the areas in which they edit. It is reasonable to expect that dditors who wish to engage in a particular area of enwiki display a minimum level of competence to allow them to constructively contribute.

Firstly, the professionalism of a given club is irrelevant for NFOOTY, the guideline is only concerned with the professionalism of the league a club competes in. Secondly, absence from WP:FPL is obviously tacit confirmation that a league is not shown to be fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - all the information in the article is well cited and supported, I think this article just might pass WP:GNG, although a lot of the coverage looks routine. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify which sources are non routine? Everything in the article is routine match or transfer reporting far as I can see. Fenix down (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think that this passes GNG at all; the coverage is routine Spiderone 21:34, 9 November 2018 (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.