Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Osigwe

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Osigwe

[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)

Does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Did not play in a professional league. » Shadowowl | talk 16:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY, but I do believe it meets WP:GNG. I searched Google and was able to find quite a bit of significant coverage in multiple reliable newspapers, including Premium Times and The Nation (Nigeria). I'll add them to the article if/when I get the chance.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more references now. Unless I've mistaken the reliability of some of the sources, I still believe that it meets the general notability guideline.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nfooty is too inclusive as it is, people who do not meet it and are only known in connection with football should never have articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet BASIC/GNG; NFOOTY is not met either, but is not a prescriptive inclusion criterion anyway. Sam Sailor 09:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and I think the coverage is too routine to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY, and I would agree with Papaursa about the sources being too WP:ROUTINE to meet WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets the WP:GNG. Coverage is not at all routine as it includes discussions to include Osigwe in the Nigerian national team. Why would that be routine? SkyGazer 512 summarized the situation well. gidonb (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: Unless I'm missing something, this is the only time Gidonb !voted in this AfD. The two users who !voted to keep were me (SkyGazer 512) and Gidonb.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the correction.

--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was wavering between keep and delete but both JohnPackLambert and Paparusa's vote rationals put me here. Sebastian Osigwe doesn't meet WP:Footy and the coverage for him to meet WP:GNG isn't enough to justify keeping the article since he so clearly fails WP:Footy. Maybe in the future if he does something outside of football the article can be recreated but right now it's a delete for me.JC7V-constructive zone 02:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:04, 30 September 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.