Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatah Ahamada

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[edit]

[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)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rusalkii (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [1], [2] , [3], and among many many more sources. Clearly was significant figure in Comoros football with an ongoing career. In addition, he is one of few Comoros players to every play abroad, in Europe. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd found that first source I wouldn't have nominated it, I don't know how I missed it. I'm not sure if it all adds up to notability but it's at worst borderline and certainly much better than most of our footballer stubs. Rusalkii (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given WP:BIAS concerns about coverage from smaller countries, a borderline case should skew toward Keep. matt91486 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Africa, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Das osmnezz: The 24heures article seems fine, but the second article presented is entirely an interview without background biography or other significant background information (thus failing independence) while the third is a trivial mention (not significant coverage). Need more sources with the WP:GNG in mind. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG after improvements IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per all of the above. This looks like a rather random nomination. On the positive side, he was not prodded. Prodding happens very frequently with articles where a discussion can be expected. gidonb (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we only have one good source. Ping me if anything else is found. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:14, 16 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. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen those extra sources but only the first one is significant coverage, as per analysis from Mellohi! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with MOTG, we only have one SIRS (it has a nice paragraph on Ahamada) and a bunch of trivial/routine coverage. That is far from passing WP:GNG, and given that he is an amateur with a single international appearance (in a glorified friendly), I can't see how we would justify IAR here. Jogurney (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per MOTG and Jogurney. GNG is not achieved with a single source of SIGCOV, and no number of passing routine mentions can add up to BASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 20:39, 18 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]

Comment That second source is a match report which does not help him pass GNG or any other criteria. Dougal18 (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, primary match reports fail our guidelines in multiple ways. JoelleJay (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a primary match report. It's a secondary in-depth extensive article about a match, which has numerous mentions of Ahamada. WP:ROUTINE talks of sports scores being routine - not in-depth articles. Nfitz (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think that article was written with the tenses it uses without being primary? And anyway it is extensive only in that it offers a play-by-play of specific match details from the perspective of one spectator, with nothing encyclopedic or DUE from the handful of sentences describing Ahamada's involvement. ROUTINE is not limited to simple box scores, the guideline explicitly says Planned coverage of scheduled events and sports matches are routine so that makes two places where this type of coverage is excluded. JoelleJay (talk) 22:47, 25 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, User:JoelleJay if jfc is an abbreviation for Jesus Fucking Christ - and if so, how that is not a bannable offence? If it's a euphemism how is that not a violation of 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 Juventus F.C.; I have no intention of taking a single personal attack to ANI - but I'm concerned that your reaction to be caught violating one of the pillars is not to simply apologize, but to challenge me to report you. Also I don't see how that sentence, indicates that the source is primary; also, that's not present tense, that's the subjunctive tense for assurer and estimer. I wouldn't translate anything to "as you know" anywhere in that sentence. I think by ROUTINE and NSPORT you are referring in particular to 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. here editors are encouraged not to refer to the final point of WP:SPORTCRIT, which is clearly not trying to say a single source is sufficient for notability for a sports person, when the first sentence aligns exactly with GNG in the requirement of multiple significant independent sources as all articles require. and here A single source is enough to prevent a PROD, but not enough to keep an article at WP:AFD if no additional sources can be found. and here Read the very next line. "Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG." I.e, it still needs to meet the GNG. and by me recently here. You've also been informed of the relationship between NSPORT and ROUTINE multiple times, like here with WP:ROUTINE is called out as a criteria in WP:SPORTBASIC, which applies here. ... WP:SPORTCRIT specifically calls out 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:BLUDGEON further. How you actually think it's okay to further 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:SIGCOV that has been presented and for the subject to pass 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.