Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahad Saket

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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Saket

[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)

He might of played in the Stars League which is fine due to the WP:NFOOTY, but WP:GNG is an issue as their isn't any decent sources for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Soccerway confirms multiple appearances; given the length of his career at the top level in Qatar I refuse to believe there aren't sufficient Arabic-language sources (both online and offline) for GNG. Giant Snowman 08:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Will change if GiantSnowman can provide these sources, otherwise, it is simply speculation that these sources exist. I cannot find any sources other than statistics pages myself. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: alas, I don't read or speak Arabic. But a quick Google search for "فهد ساكت" (which the article says is the Arabic transliteration of this name) has 550,000 results... Giant Snowman 12:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But my question, is how many of those results relate to the footballer. HawkAussie (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again - I don't read or speak Arabic. But you should be able to tell me as you did WP:BEFORE, right? Giant Snowman 09:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^Indeed. Major language barrier, so extra care is (or, at least, should be) required for these articles - arguably should be done before nominating... how can a nominator (in general, not HawkAussie directly) judge something they can't see? Qatari, or anyone from countries that use Arabic, people are very difficult to find online if you don't have an understanding of the language - I've tried before away from Wikipedia, e.g. when watching the AFC Champions League, to look up players of interest - very difficult, given different people (and therefore media) use the person's rather lengthy name differently: in this case Fahad Saket or Fahad Al-Shammeri - Al Jazeera even use both! R96Skinner (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are more than enough statistical references to warrant a Wiki article. The subject played in several matches in a professional football league, won the foremost continental club championship in 2011, and is a former member of the Olympic national team, so I don't see why this has been brought up for deletion. You're saying that because we can't dig up some random, meaningless interview or biography of the player that he doesn't deserve an article? Elspamo4 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 2 Keep votes compared to 2 delete votes, but the strength of the keep vote arguments are weak. Editors are reminded that NFOOTY is a presumption of GNG and where this is challenged, simply citing NFOOTY is not a valid argument for retention. Relisting to give editors voting keep time to support their vote with reference to GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - People above state that all that is needed is a news report concerning a match he played in - here's one from Al-Sharq newspaper which is an WP:RS. Here's a match report in which he played from Al-Arab (an RS), notably this article describes him scoring a goal for Al Kharaitiyat SC, which is a top-level team in Qatar (i.e., it's in the Stars League). Here's also his profile on Al-Jazeera, which again is an RS. The only thing I'd note is his full name appears to be Fahad Saket Al Shammari, but as there are other footballers by the name "Fahad Al Shammari" he does not go by this name. Meets WP:NFOOTY. All articles analysed using Google translate. FOARP (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – statistical databases and match reports are primary sources. We need secondary sources to base an article on; that's not just per WP:N, but also per our policies WP:NOR and WP:BLP. Without secondary sources, we cannot keep this article. – Levivich 21:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is a statistical database a primary source? It summarises the content of match reports, and is thus obviously a secondary source. FOARP (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How are statistics anything other than primary sources? Statistics don't summarize anything; they report. A collection of statistics doesn't become a secondary source unless it engages in analysis or interpretation, etc. "Levivich scored 1 goal on October 10, 2019", is primary (reporting what happened, no analysis or interpretation); "Levivich scored 10 goals in the 2019 season" is primary (same); "Levivich had a good season in 2019, having scored 10 goals" is secondary – an analysis or interpretation of primary sources (the goals-scored statistics). Google "are statistics primary or secondary", every result seems to say statistics are primary and not secondary sources. Statistics databases like Soccerway are almanacs or directories of statistics... a primary source. SW doesn't tell you who had a good season or a bad season, who is the best or the worst, who improved or deteriorated; it just reports the numbers. An article that is only sourced to Soccerway is not "based on secondary sources" as required by NOR. – Levivich 19:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, here's more coverage of the subject 1 2 3 4 5 FOARP (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these is a brief mention in a match report or similar; I don't see any of them as in-depth enough to be WP:SIGCOV. – Levivich 05:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFOOTY. As I see it, the real PROBLEM with this article is that there are no valid in-line sources. In such cases the references template should be preferred. gidonb (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP and passes WP:NFOOTY. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NFOOTY is met, and there's a lot of mentions in the Arabic media. User:Levivich's claim that statistics like Soccerway are primary sources, is obviously mindbogglingly false! Nfitz (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep case for deletion is based on an inadvertent misreading of the media sources in Arabic language. These are secondary media / journalism sources, not primary sources or raw statistical data. Clear and easy keep. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2019 (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.