Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/France: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 15: Line 15:
== France ==
== France ==
<!-- New AFD discussions should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD discussions should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Paul Rouanet}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cédric Vernier}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cédric Vernier}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Foued_Kahlaoui}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Foued_Kahlaoui}}

Revision as of 18:46, 27 July 2023

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to France. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|France|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to France. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for France related AfDs


France

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 redirect‎ to Sailing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – 6 Metre. Liz Read! Talk! 18:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Paul Rouanet

Jean Paul Rouanet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NOLYMPICS, and a WP:BEFORE didn't produce much Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2023 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cédric Vernier

Cédric Vernier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG. Significant coverage cannot be found. This is not significant coverage, and it is a primary source since it is a direct interview of the person in question. Something trivial that I will mention is that even if this was created at a time that WP:NFOOTY existed, it still fails NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2023 (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.
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 actual analysis of the references indicates that there are not sufficient reliable and independent sources to sustain an article on this subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foued Kahlaoui

Foued Kahlaoui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite some coverage at local newspaper JSL here and here, very little coverage, practically no professional appearances, and subject fails general notability guideline. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't merely "interviews" and "routine coverage such as being fired", I literally cited secondary coverage above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Dougal18 as there is no in-depth secondary coverage in reliable sources (only one lejsl.fr article comes close). My favorite bit from the coverage linked above is this: Personne ne connaissait Foued Kahlaoui, pas même la plupart de ses futurs équipiers. Not exactly an endorsement of his notability ;) Jogurney (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed with above that the first lejsl.fr article (what even is the second piece??) is the only source that approaches SIGCOV, and that is not enough to meet GNG, especially when so many of the sentences in the piece are redundant or unencyclopedic fluff. Maville is a transfer report. Tunisie-foot is a pure Q&A interview (why link it at all?). Proxifoot has a passing mention in routine transaction news. Signal is his club website. TDG has a single quote from him. These are not enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG with above sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no offense but I feel like I've seen this exact AFD discussion hundreds of times at this point, always divided around athletes and what coverage counts towards GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, concur with the inadequacy of sources cited above. Looking through the coverage, it is nothing more than a series of interviews and routine announcements filled with puffery that do not equal a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've found a couple more interviews and transfer coverage of him from national magazines, which is the extent I can do with basic internet searches. While my new sources don't meet GNG (at least this brief bit of news could be used to flesh out the article with prose) I think he's both notable enough as a footballer - dozens of professional games - and has generated enough requisite secondary coverage, including at least one WP:GNG-qualifying source, that someone could write a decent, notable stub about him. In terms of overall notability, though, he's right on the line. SportingFlyer T·C 20:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But what is the GNG-qualifying source? I can't find one nor has anyone identified one. Jogurney (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first one Paul Vaurie linked is fine by my assessment. The Maville article is transfer announcement but also covers him decently enough. I think we can keep on both of those alone, and then there are additional JSL mentions which we could write a start-class article on. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Paul Vaurie that the JSL source is not adequate to establish SIGCOV, but I thank you for putting forward a policy-based argument in favor of keep. Jogurney (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Tunisia, and France. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the eight sources currently listed at the article, three might constitute significant coverage: The first Le JSL article, the Dunkerque source, and maybe the Signal FC source. The interview from Signal FC includes an extremely concise biography and is not independent, as it seems he was coaching there at the time, so it doesn't count towards the GNG. The remaining sources, in my view, do not constitute significant coverage, as they only briefly mention Kahlaoui. Same goes for the source brought in by SportingFlyer. Since it doesn't seem there is enough information to write a thorough article that goes beyond simply where he played (WP:NOTDATABASE), I think deletion is appropriate.
WP:SPORTBASIC says that "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article." This contradicts my above reasoning, but the thorough searching done in the course of this discussion has convinced me that there are in fact not "sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article". Thus, I still think deletion is most appropriate. Toadspike (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree - there's easily enough here to write a start-class article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 18 August 2023 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu "Boots" Di Pilla

Mathieu "Boots" Di Pilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musical act. No sourcing, even in .fr websites, only CoreandCO and MusicWaves, neither of which is RS. Not meeting notability requriements. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2023 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Midwest destinations

List of Air Midwest destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

And also the following list of 81 other airline-destination articles, all either citing no sources or only one source:

81 Airline destination lists

Per the 2018 RFC on lists of airline destinations, these are not suitable content for Wikipedia. A subsequent AN discussion recommended these be listed for deletion at AFD in orderly fashion, with a link to the RFC, and the closer of any AFD was to take the RFC into account in any close. That the 2018 RFC remains the consensus of the Wikipedia community was re-emphasised in a recent, well-advertised and attended AFD in which 14 articles were deleted, a consensus to delete that was subsequently strongly endorsed on review. Since May a total of 57 airline destination lists have been deleted in 18 different AFD discussions, including lists of the destinations of national flag-carriers and of a member of Star Alliance, with none being closed as kept that I am aware of.

The articles should be deleted as they are failures of WP:NOT. Specifically, they are exhaustive lists of the services offered by commercial enterprises as well as being essentially travel-guides. They are also effectively advertising for the companies concerned, another thing that Wikipedia is explicitly not. Since they can only be true on a particular, randomly-selected day, they are ephemeral and impossible to maintain given the way airline schedules change constantly, but if you did try to do keep them up to date, what you would have would essentially be an airline news-service, and Wikipedia is not news.

In addition to this, every one of these articles is dedicated entirely to exhaustive lists of trivial, run-of-the-mill details of commercial operations of a kind that WP:CORP expressly bars from being used to sustain notability, making the content of them essentially trivia and non-notable ab initio. This includes "simple listings or compilations, such as ... product or service offerings" and "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as...the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops [and/or] the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business". They are the equivalent of a list of pizzas sold by Pizza Hut on 3 October 2007, or a list of Blockbuster Video outlets operating on 23 January 1988: pure indiscriminate trivia (another thing that Wikipedia is not).

The sourcing of these articles also universally fails to sustain notability under WP:GNG let alone WP:CORP. The articles that include any reference, are either cited to the airline itself or to aviation industry press that fails to meet the WP:ORGIND standard. No source is cited, having significant coverage of the destinations of each airline, that would meet the audience standards under WP:AUD. Realistically, the only people who can ever tell you what services an airline is operating is the airline itself. Particularly where the lists declare a service to be "terminated", this has been achieved through original research by comparing lists of previous services with those presently operated by the airline, since even if a source could found saying the service was terminated, that only verifies as of the date the reference was published, not as of the date given for the list which may be years later.

(I'll try to template the articles in the next few days, but if anyone with AWB would like to do it in the meantime that would be great) FOARP (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, Ivory Coast, Morocco, Nigeria, Tunisia, Afghanistan, China, Laos, Israel, Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Greenland, Hungary, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Caribbean, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, United States of America, and Texas. FOARP (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; violates WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTGUIDE. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide, also these are always out of date as they are not properly maintained, which renders them of no value to anyone. Basically a non-encyclopedic subject. - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is basically a catalog of their products. Plus in reality, as with any catalog, it would change rapidly and not be maintained. Thirdly, it would inherently not have secondary sourcing. North8000 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the information by its nature is either ephemeral (for current up-to-the-minute destinations) or indiscriminate and likely unverifiable (for an exhaustive list of every destination in history). These seems rather low-value, high-maintenance information that lies outside of such guidances as WP:IINFO and WP:NOT. --Jayron32 16:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT, mainly WP:INDISCRIMINATE section. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all the above, and probably more. The nail in the coffin is that several members of WP:AIR have posted here to air the same view. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I maintain an adequately sourced list could pass NLIST, but I couldn't find any sources at all in the five I spot-checked apart from timetables. SportingFlyer T·C 19:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SportingFlyer - They might theoretically pass NLIST, but not WP:CORP which, as articles listing the services offer by a company, they need to pass in order to show notability. The reason why this is so is that accurate, exhaustive lists of destinations that an airline flies to can only be sourced from that company (or media reports based on the announcements of that company) since they change all the time. Just as much to the point, they need also to comply with WP:NOT. FOARP (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't think so - I think one of these articles that passed NLIST would also be a valid split, considering we frequently include rail route maps which are essentially the same thing. SportingFlyer T·C 11:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists of the products and services of a company fall explicitly within the scope of WP:CORP. Rail routes are physical infrastructure and exempt from WP:CORP. Air services provided by a company are ephemeral, can be announced and cancelled at the drop of a hat, do not involve intervening infrastructure and so aren’t. Split lists still need to meet notability guidelines as stand-alone articles per WP:AVOIDSPLIT - they cannot inherit the notability of the article they split from because notability is not inherited. No article gets a pass on WP:NOT simply because it is a split-list.
    This was all covered in the previous AFD, which closed as delete and was endorsed at DELREV. FOARP (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with you, but that's fine, and it's completely irrelevant to the AfD at hand anyways. There may be airlines where the routes or destinations pass NLIST, that is a very high bar, none of the articles appear to at the moment, but this should not preclude their recreation. SportingFlyer T·C 22:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I echo what's above; I've always felt these types of lists are better suited for WikiTravel. We aren't helping anyone if these lists are never maintained and without any kind of critical discussion, a long list of random facts is rather useless. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For funsies, I pulled one out of a hat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arik_Air_destinations. List was current to 2015, archived in 2019. Lead says it's current to 2021 and they only fly to seven destinations. Below is a list of a few dozen places that they don't fly to... So it's almost a decade old, out of date by three years? Oh great, if I never need a historical list for this airline from 2017, I can look it up? That's too much minutiae for Wikipedia and is rather niche. Simply googling old timetables would be a better use of my time. So there is no real reason to keep it here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And even the AN discussion the nominator mentions was in 2018; if no one's adopted these lists in the FIVE years since then, I'm not sure what we're expecting to happen... Let's get rid of them and move on to more important things. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oaktree b - That's a good one. The only way any of the Arik Air destinations can be sourced is by going to Arik Air's website and looking at where they're flying to that day. The basis for saying a destination is "terminated" as of April 2021 can only be original research (i.e., comparing the April 2021 destinations with older ones and arriving at a conclusion not stated in the source - that the destination is terminated as of April 2021). Even with this the entire list is a WP:V failure because the source isn't from April 2021 - it's from something they looked at in October 2015 and the archived version is from July 2019. And even if the date were changed to the archive date... was Arik Air actually flying to all those destinations on that date, or were they just saying that they did?
    I honestly don't know how we ended up with this whole corpus of articles that can only be sourced ultimately from the airlines themselves, and were clear WP:NOT violations. Reviewing the RFC and AN discussions, as well as the earlier AFD discussion in January 2007, May 2007, 2015, and 2018 it appears that most of the opposition was sparked either by the idea that the lists were "useful" or simply opposition to deleting that many articles in one go - in retrospect a great deal of time would have been saved had the problem been dealt with back in 2006 when it first arose, but that's Wikipedia for you. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See voy:Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel. Our sister project is Wikivoyage.
    Prior discussions there have indicated that, as a small community, they do not want to maintain these articles and would prefer for them to be at Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: that says a lot that even they don't want to maintain them. For the reasons stated above they certainly do not belong here on Wikipedia. Where they do belong and are already available is on the airlines' websites. - Ahunt (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. They may well want to shuffle the useless things off onto us, but that is our decision not theirs. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem like no one thinks they are notable for any website, save the airlines themselves. I think this actually strengthens the delete votes here. - Ahunt (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. WP:NOTGUIDE and most lists don't pass WP:CORP, even if some were formerly Nationalised airlines, which for the most part largely still doesn't pass WP:INHERENT. Coastie43 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all all totally unencyclopedic. Maungapohatu (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per NOT. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. The nominating statement provides a detailed and accurate rationale for why these articles are not helpful to the encyclopedia. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and proactively endorse deletion of all future such lists at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I would of had say merge a brief overview to their parent articles, but I spot checked a few and the sources do not seem good enough to use as a base. Also question for nominator, does this AfD cover every airline destination list articles that have "no sources or only one source"? Jumpytoo Talk 02:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through all the articles in the airline destination list category back in May and these are the ones I found then. Possible I’ve missed some since I am only human, and also possible some have been created since then. There may be multiple citations in some cases, but these should be to the same source (eg multiple citations to the airline website). FOARP (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete Effectively my only opposition to this is to the deletion of so many articles at one time. I am always wary of throwing out so much work at once, no matter how low quality and un-encyclopedic it may be. That said, clearly nobody has much interest in maintaining these, thus they will remain low-quality and out of date. SurferSquall (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why limit this nomination to just articles with no sources or only one source? If I am reading the 2018 RfC and consensus here correctly then all articles in Category:Lists of airline destinations should be deleted. Charcoal feather (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For historical airlines which no longer exist, the question of currency and maintenance does not arise. Historical notability of the service becomes the main criterion. For extant lines with a long history, things get complicated and would need to be treated on a case-by-case basis. I'd rather not go into all that here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [update] I checked some sample lists for historic airlines. Our lists are equally awful there; self-published sources, whether as a standalone article or a section in the parent. The article on Imperial Airways takes a more narrative approach to the historic routes, which is far better. If the odd baby is thrown out with the bathwater, it can always be added back in somewhere more sensible. I now agree that the lists should go en masse. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For airlines that no longer exist, the WP:NOT problem (particularly WP:IINFO and WP:NOTCATALOGUE) is still there.
    There’s also massive WP:V/WP:CORP/WP:CRYSTAL/WP:OR issues.
    Particularly, if you give a list of services operating on a particular date then the only source that can conceivably sustain that is the company itself - no-one else (except maybe equally non-independent industry press?) is going to provide such an exhaustive listening. But if you instead try to state start/finish dates for the services listed, you’ll be cobbling together sources (again, almost universally sourced ultimately to the airline) to state a conclusion that none of them actually say. Additionally, coverage of services in industry press is almost always from before the service starts/stops, and thus is forecasting the future for something that may not actually have happened.
    TL;DR - these lists were always a mistake and should have been deleted back in 2006 when this issue first came up. FOARP (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately when Beeblebrox tried to do it in one go people complained (see the AN discussion linked in the nom). However we’ve now had 19 AFD discussions in a row about these things that have ended with the article being deleted, all of them with practical super-majorities for deletion. There just ain’t no “there” there. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drooly delete, where "drooling" is how I respond to the thought that at least some volatile, poorly or totally unsourced, perpetually inaccurate lists might be purged (for a while) from Wikipedia. I picked three at random; one was List of Air Bucharest destinations, which I found to be much like the Arik Air example mentioned above. Of the 11 destinations listed, only one has a citation. That source was "Retrieved 12 September 2015", "archived ... on 18 January 2016", and when I view the archive, it shows an image of a PowerPoint-type destination summary (slide 4) from December 2013. With about 105 destinations.
    WP:NOT and WP:V and, oh; I'm drooling again. I'd also like to see that the destinations list don't start growing again unsourced in the parent airline's article, but I suppose that's too much to hope for. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s a good one because (reviewing the article history) that article was both prod’d and AFD’d, but has never, ever, in its entire history, conformed to our most basic standards on encyclopaedic content and sourcing. It is ONLY airline-fandom and opposition to removing mass-created and failing content en masse that has kept it on this encyclopaedia.
    Even the (bad) argument that some of these were featured lists and so all of them should be kept which was put forward by Lugnuts in 2018 no longer has any validity. Neither of the airline destination lists that were made FL should ever have passed (not least because they weren’t properly sourced), and both have since been de-listed due to these problems.
    It’s time to solve the problem in one go and stop pretending there’s anything worth keeping in this category. I’ve got one more list of another ~100 poorly-sourced articles to go nominate after this one, but then we really should just mass-delete the remaining ~200. FOARP (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Do we need to break this widening-out of the AfD as a separate subsection, or add it to the rationale? We should probably also notify a few wikiprojects of the change. I don't want post-closure complaints that we snuck it through without due notification. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Whilst the related projects have been notified of deletion, it does seem that many participants from the past (mass nominated) AFDs of the destination lists in 2006, 2007 and 2015 have either moved on from either Wikipedia entirely, or are editing different topics. It was also noted that in earlier previous AFDs there was some cross-posting of past deletion discussions to the outside community (e.g posting the AFD links to airliners.net for example). Also noted that a few promiment contributors that are still active over at the Aviation (and related WikiProjects) that has participated in the AFDs in the past, have chosen to no longer participate in the discussion after the past few AFDs have led to deletions. This may probably suggest that virtually no-one are willing to adopt the lists for editing and keeping up to date considering a large number of lists have anywhere between 2 to 5 years gaps between edits. Coastie43 (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting Category:Lists of airline destinations, all who dwell therein, and a bunch of in-article lists elsewhere, does seem in a different order from deleting a mere 81 inhabitants. Maybe it'd be simpler to delete the 81 for now, and wait for any ripples to subside before going postal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What views do you (all) have about what should happen if (at least) these 82 lists are deleted? The airlines' articles generally have a "Destinations" section with something like {{main|List of Air Bucharest destinations}} which produces:
      Main article: List of Air Bucharest destinations
    Should those {{main}} templates be merely deleted, along with the presumably then-empty Destinations section? Part of our problem is that we don't have current and reliably sourced destinations, so this seems the appropriate course, but I wanted to explicitly clarify our intentions. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much exactly that. If certain destinations have verifiable significance (via independent sources) then that significance can be discussed under suitable headings (see for example the Imperial Airways article), but the lists themselves all go in the bin. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These articles are a trove of (mostly quite accurate) valuable information which has taken years to compile and is difficult to find in such a synthetic form anywhere else than here, therefore they are of great use for airline enthusiasts. I would also like to point out that some of these airlines, such as Sabena are now defunct and of great historical importance, therefore these lists cannot be considered free advertising, rather they are information which provide historical context about the history of a major airline, and could be improved if more sources were added.

    After reading the discussion however, it seems to me there will not be a policy-based consensus to keep them on Wikipedia, but wouldn't there be any way to download/export these articles in order to repost them to a more appropriate website? I'm asking mostly about those that are already deleted (which I therefore can't download), as I find myself using these articles relatively often and wasn't aware of their AfD status until now. Even if these are considered not good enough for Wikipedia, I would like to save this data before it disappears permanently, as it is not found anywhere else (some have suggested airline websites but this doesn't work for defunct airlines and is sometimes not listed directly).

DominikWSP (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • After reading WP:Userfication, I was thinking that, if others agree, moving the articles (at least those relating to more important or defunct airlines) to userspace might be a solution to avoid losing years of work on hundreds of articles in this category. These might come with a time freeze and a disclaimer, but would still be usable as a historical reference, especially for airlines which are already defunct and whose list of destinations at closure is thus complete. DominikWSP (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DominikWSP, I suggest you copy what you want today. It's a little late into the discussion to be suggesting alternatives when it's almost 100% Delete all point of view among participants. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 31 July 2023 (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.
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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Baltayan

Lauren Baltayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No achievement so far. Seems non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://thesquashsite.com/open-de-bretzels-2023
  2. ^ https://www.psaworldtour.com/challenger-tour/open-des-bretzels-tournament-preview/
  3. ^ https://www.psaworldtour.com/psa-challenger-tour/
Silver seren, I couldn't find any good sources online. Le Parisien looks like a start, could you access the entire L'Alsace article? I couldn't see significant coverage and it is also local coverage of an event in Mulhouse. The tournament is at challenger 5 level, which I believe means a top prize of $5,000 and it is aimed at younger athletes. TSventon (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
$5K may seem meagre to outsiders, but that's the reality of squash. There's orders of magnitude difference between prize money in squash and for example tennis. Low money doesn't mean it's not a significant tournament in the professional world tour. Which BTW I think it's tremendously unfair to these superb athletes. Dr. Vogel (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only independent coverage of her I can find - already quoted above by keep !voter - clearly fails WP:YOUNGATH. No problem with re-creation once she becomes notable, but as of yet, she clearly fails WP:GNG, and winning a professional tournament - especially one with a prize of only $5k - means nothing. SportingFlyer T·C 13:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, as explained above, the prize money means nothing. Prize money in squash is ridiculously low. This is a major tournament. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More sources that discuss the subject have been added. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One of which was a brief mention from the French Squash Federation and the other of which was an interview from the same organisation, which still unfortunately doesn't count towards WP:GNG. This may just be WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 16:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are sources written about the subject. And they join the various other sources that talk directly about the subject and consist of prose that gives information about her biography. And there are more, e.g. found by @Silver seren, which we can't access due to paywalls.
    I think WP:TOOSOON would apply if, for example, this athlete had had a brilliant junior career, but had yet to win a senior professional tournament.
    That is not the case here. This athlete has won a senior professional tournament, and is in fact the youngest European, male or female, to ever achieve that, as some of the sources discuss.
    It's remarkable that there are several sources written about her, given the low coverage that squash gets because it's not on TV. And even more remarkable for a female athlete.
    Those unfamiliar with squash may not know about the comparatively lower coverage because it's not on TV. And not being on TV also means smaller prize money. Things need to be taken in context.
    And there's also the common sense and better off points made by @Frank Anchor and @Johnbod. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    She's a young athlete who hasn't been covered in any non squash-related coverage, as far as I can tell. All but one source currently in the article has some sort of problem with demonstrating notability - not independent of the subject or simple links to events she's played in. The only possibly good source in the article for notability is the Le Parisien article. If she keeps it up and there's more coverage, she's eligible, but unfortunately after a big brouhaha - if I can invoke a little French - over sports stubs we no longer keep sports stubs based on database entries and non-independent sources. SportingFlyer T·C 09:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you mean - there are multiple sources cited in the article, where multiple authors from multiple different organisations have written about the subject. And WP:ATHLETE only requires 1. Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NSPORT requires GNG to be met, which means multiple SIGCOV IRS sources. SPORTSBASIC requires at least one source to be cited in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources are explicitly excluded from counting toward notability because they are not independent of the subject. NSPORT is very clear on this. JoelleJay (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Baltayan does not pass GNG. The fact that Squash is a relatively unpopular sport that few watch is an explanation as to why she is not notable, not a reason for why the article should be kept. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the point, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. My point is that, despite squash receiving far less coverage than say for example tennis, this player has been the subject of multiple pieces. Multiple authors, from multiple organisations, including 2 French newspapers, have written about her. Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. TOOSOON. Although she has some decent coverage found above, the sourcing just isn't enough to overcome YOUNGATH and GNG issues. JoelleJay (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here and I'd rather not close it as No Consensus yet so I'm relisting it for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the above sources which provide enough coverage to pass GNG especially considering squas receives much less overall coverage than many other sports. Also, any YOUNGATH concerns are invalid since she was the winner of a professional squash tournament on the world tour. Carson Wentz (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2023 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Hiron

Jacques Hiron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article since its creation 15 years ago. I did try to find sources but I wasn't really able to find anything beyond confirmation that his books exist. As far as I can tell, coverage does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. I missed a previous PROD from 2008 in the page history, so GB fan is correct in that this must go to AfD. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article does a poor job of explaining Hiron's career. Hiron is a noted "tintinophile" -- that is, an expert on the Tintin universe, and the iconic French comic series' Belgian creator, Hergé. Hiron has also written his own graphic novels and comics ("bande dessinée" in French), the Le Paquebot des sables series about intrigue and adventures on the MV Moonta.
I'm still pondering notability; I'll be either a weak keep or a weak delete. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked at the French Wikipedia article before coming here. The coverage I'm seeing isn't anywhere near enough for WP:NAUTHOR. I'm willing to be proven wrong but please be more specific than "sources exist", which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain Lot's of bad refereences. But I am open to seeing you review them and telling me which meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing in our article suggests he is notable; writers need to meet WP:NCREATIVE (GNG) like everyone else. Having read comments above, feel free to ping me IF sources are found that suggest notability, but no such sources have been linked here so far, nor what I see in the fr wiki article suggests they are there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sadly, the comic/graphic-novel arts are not well covered by sources, but if anyone knows of some, please let me know! I found a lot of sales sites, a few short interviews. Even his own site gives very little information other than listing the publications. I could imagine considering him notable as an author, but I have no idea how to see relative sales of French graphic novels nor how to evaluate them. Lamona (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2023 (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.
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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brice Bexter

Brice Bexter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding sourcing for this person, most of the acting parts appear minor roles. Oaktree b (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I felt there was sufficient media coverage, although some of the sources are not in English. Starklinson (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 10 August 2023 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Guillon

Olivier Guillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Our notability criteria for Olympians has changed significantly over the years, and simply being one is no longer enough for an article. While I suspect there might be coverage in French that I am not seeing, my search for anything related to Guillon has turned up little more than stats pages, photographs, and brief mentions (i.e. WP:GNG does not appear to be met). The fr-Wiki article has more information but similar sourcing issues. Primefac (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wanted to save it, but the best looking French links didn't resolve here for whatever reason. I think it's possibly sourceable so don't mind an AtD or if someone wants to re-create it with better sources? SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 27 July 2023 (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.
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 no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 13:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Los Carayos

Los Carayos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication the band passes WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is significant coverage in:
  • Culshaw, Peter (2013-05-09). Clandestino: In Search of Manu Chao. Profile Books. ISBN 978-1-84765-640-7.
  • Dupont, Brice (2022-04-22). Manu Chao, l'intégrale: Toutes les chansons expliquées (in French). Librinova. ISBN 979-10-405-0631-7.
Jfire (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:39, 27 July 2023 (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.
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 no consensus‎. After three relists, editors remain divided on the merits of the cited sources, and discussion is descending into personal attacks. signed, Rosguill talk 16:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Madi

Ibrahim Madi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Three appearances for the Comoros national football team and plays in the French fifth division. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found this and this. JTtheOG (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I agree that the level of coverage does not warrant an article. I was unable to find secondary sources that don't mention the subject in passing/routine. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Ortizesp. TBH I'm not quite sure why we're here when the nom has provided sources that appear to satisfy the plain meaning of the GNG. Anyway, here we have >419 words entirely about the article subject, maybe 300 words after subtracting arguably primary/quote-based content. Here we have at least 189 words (not sure if part of the article is cut off by the paywall), again entirely about the article subject. Here we have an article largely about the article subject, with at least 150 words of concentrated biographical content. All of these relate directly to the article subject; all appear to be published in independent reliable sources; all cover the subject sufficiently directly that they can be cited directly without any concern over original research. All therefore appear to meet the requirements of the GNG (and the standards at WP:NBASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT, which do not seem to materially depart from the GNG here) and particularly the WP:SIGCOV threshold of address[ing] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. -- Visviva (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis and lack of significant coverage identified since. Madi is an amateur footballer, so it's little surprise that the coverage in LNR and LP is routine stuff like thoat match report and contract announcement (although I'll agree with GiantSnowman that the LNR match report has a good bit of background info). The word counts mentioned above are simply not accurate (for example, the LP article dedicates a single sentence to Madi as it is primarily covers another player). Jogurney (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're evenly split when it comes to a consensus here with three keep !votes and three delete !votes. Relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 11:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakest keep I can make arguments both ways for this one - there's just about enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG, but the delete !votes aren't necessarily invalid, either, and you can make a good argument to delete. (I almost wrote neutral, but neutral does mean don't delete, so changed to weakest keep.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The LNR piece has some very marginal coverage -- essentially the only encyclopedic material is

    Just the father of Neyana (2 months), Ibrahim arrived with his family in Poitiers with Marnie, his partner. Native of the South-East, near Marseille, he is not bothered by the sun and the strong heat. After discovering football at the age of five in her village, in Burel, Madi joined the training center of Istres, in U15 Nationals. He then joined Nîmes, in U17 Nationals. The striker stayed there for three years then signed with Martigues, where he played for four years, before spending a season in Marseille.

For the other sources, Visviva is once again egregiously misrepresenting the amount of coverage on the subject. The first time I called this behavior out I thought it was just carelessness in not reading any of the text and assuming news articles with the subject's name in the title must be entirely about the subject. However, with the inclusion of specific word counts I can't see how this is anything but an attempt at deliberately misleading other editors. Does this need to go to AN?

For the La Provence piece, Visviva claims (we have at least 189 words (not sure if part of the article is cut off by the paywall), again entirely about the article subject). This is an utterly routine transfer announcement about multiple players, two of whom are in the title, that in fact contains one single sentence on Madi:

Ibrahim Madi, the promising Comorian international (21 years old) who was nevertheless courted finally chose to prolong the Martegal adventure.

For Comorosfootball.com, Visviva claims at least 150 words of concentrated biographical content. Actually the source only has ~60 words of routine transactional material

At only 21 years old, Ibrahim Madi will continue the adventure with FC Martigues (National 2). He signs for a third season with club martégal which he joined in 2017. Trained at Nîmes Olympique, Madi (striker) has won to total 45 matches and 8 goals in two seasons. Young promising, he had his first selection with the Comoros last September against Togo.

All of which is derived directly from the FC Martigues instagram post:

At only 21 years old, Ibrahim Madi will already be experiencing his third season with the first team. Arriving in 2017 from the Nimes Olympique training center, Madi was able to win for a total of 45 matches. What allow him to know his first selections with the Comoros. Good news to always be able to count on his services for the coming season.

Furthermore, Comorosfootball.com is a group blog: "Comoros Football 269" is an online media founded on September 16, 2013 based exclusively on Comoros football news. 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. It has no evidence of an editorial team, no way of even seeing how article authors are, no avenue for corrections, etc. JoelleJay (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer, would your opinion change with the updated info on the sources? JoelleJay (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry - I think there's just enough there to write a reliably sourced stub article on him. SportingFlyer T·C 09:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From just the one LNR piece? How? We could easily write a reliably sourced stub article using exclusively primary and non-independent sources, so simply having that possible as an end product is certainly not enough to justify an article. What evidence do we have that this player has received sustained in-depth independent secondary coverage such that his article passes NOT? JoelleJay (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't think it's necessarily correct to discount comorosfootball.com which has several mentions of him. There's no proof there's anything unreliable about the site, and not every part of the world has the same level of quality media coverage as say the United States. The fact he's being independently reported on there isn't nothing. SportingFlyer T·C 12:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer, it calls itself a blog, we don't have any info on who any of the writers are or that there are even multiple at all (although we know the site is completely volunteer-run), and there is no published editorial policy; it is just decidedly not RS. We absolutely should not compromise our BLP standards for topics we believe aren't likely to be covered in reliable media. JoelleJay (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely and vehemently disagree about whether it's a reliable source - it only says it started as a blog. We can't expect something from Comoros to have a published editorial policy in the same way as an American paper - otherwise then there wouldn't be anything reliable from Comoros. SportingFlyer T·C 21:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because YOU believe Comoros media aren't developed enough to have professional editorial teams doesn't mean we can just paternalistically ignore our policy on verifiability for Comorian newspapers.
You vehemently disagree that a BLP should not be sourced to a website that has zero evidence of any professional editing whatsoever, that readily discloses all of its content is from volunteer efforts? I tracked down an interview of the website creator that states he was a math master's student (=not a professional journalist) who manages the site on his own and is seeking volunteers. That's called a blog no matter where you are, and no matter how many amateur volunteers you get to contribute content.

But even if comorosfootball.com was reliable, the only real content we can source from it is the churnalized press release linked above, which per WP:RS is not distinct from the press release itself Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release. JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also most of the hits on the site for Ibrahim Madi are actually false positives from "Ibrahim Madihali", a beach soccer player 10 years older. There's only the one post tagged "Ibrahim Madi" on the site. JoelleJay (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I count three mentions, though one is just a mention in a list of players playing abroad. SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first source posted by Ortizesp is acceptable in establishing GNG. Other sources individually fall a little short, but per WP:NBIO, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 18:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One source is decidedly not acceptable in establishing GNG. And are you really saying the one sentence in La Provence isn't trivial? Because that's the only other reliable possibly-independent reference besides LNR. JoelleJay (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're free to have that opinion, and we clearly differ as to whether it's relevant here. But it's worth noting that your interpretation is not supported by the actual text of the GNG, which phrases this in qualified and descriptive terms: multiple sources are generally expected (emphasis added). -- Visviva (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like more input that discusses the sources rather than just asserting passing or fails GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Spartaz, we have one source (LNR) that contains anything more than a trivial mention, and even that is little more than five sentences. Then we have one source that contains a one-sentence passing mention of him in a routine transaction. Those are the only two reliable sources anyone has identified, and this plainly fails all notability criteria. I don't think there's much more we can discuss. JoelleJay (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree with your individual interpretation, I think overall coverage is more than enough to keep already. Ortizesp (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The best evidence of what the guidelines mean is what the guidelines say. Nowhere in JoelleJay's inexplicably vituperative and personal screed above is there any assertion that the available sources fail the actual requirement of WP:SIGCOV that no original research is needed to extract the content. I see no serious argument that any of the discussed sources fail this standard. I am unable to discern any actual policy-based rationale for excluding content simply because it strikes the reviewer as "routine transactional material", an exception that strikes me as so broad and subjective that it could easily be construed to exclude the entirety of sports media. As to comorosfootball.com, I am happy to accept the correction, as I am certainly no expert on the quality of Comorian football media and simply followed up in good faith on another editor's mention. However, I do not think excluding that source changes, or should change, the outcome here. (Having once again said my piece and counted to three, I'm out; in the highly unlikely event that any further input from me is desired, please ping.) -- Visviva (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Inexplicably vituperative"? You have lied about source depth multiple times at multiple AfDs. I can AGF for a couple simple rookie mistakes in assuming a subject's appearing in a WP:HEADLINE means the whole article is on them. But it is not acceptable for an admin to present what appears to be granular, detailed source analysis with word counts and substantive text evaluation like we have at least 189 words (not sure if part of the article is cut off by the paywall), again entirely about the article subject) when the source actually has only 20 words on the subject, and to do this on multiple occasions including after that behavior has been called out.
    And now, instead of addressing this issue, you are insisting that these sources are still SIGCOV as if no original research is needed to extract the content is the only criterion they have to meet to count towards notability. Never mind that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, that the above sentence (and the comorosfootball.com source) is obviously derived from an FC Martigues Instagram post and so fails WP:RS, that routine sports news and announcements are excluded by NOTNEWS, and that such a facile reading of GNG as "one IR source with five sentences on the topic is sufficient" would permit likely hundreds of millions of biographies. JoelleJay (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2023 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brillat-Savarin cheese Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morbier cheese Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trappista cheese Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Paradise


Others

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/France&oldid=1167434345"