Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdellatif Aboukoura

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. This is another instance of the ages-old question of whether WP:GNG trumps a WP:SNG or vice versa. In this case at least, I think that the arguments that GNG takes precedence are stronger.

The SNG invoked, WP:NFOOTY, makes clear that those who meet its criteria are "presumed" notable. As our article about presumptions in law explains, there are rebuttable and irrebuttable presumptions. NFOOTY is silent about what kind of presumption it refers to, but GNG is not. It makes clear that the presumption of notability it establishes is a rebuttable one, by noting that "a more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article". That is also the only construction of a presumption of notability in the context of a guideline that is consistent with core policy, namely WP:V and as relevant here also WP:BLP. These core policies establish projectwide sourcing requirements that cannot be subverted by an irrebuttable presumption of notability purportedly established by a guideline. For these reasons, we must construe the presumption of notability established by NFOOTY as a rebuttable one.

The rest of the SNG NFOOTY is part of, WP:NSPORT, does not lead to a different conclusion. While its lead sentence does state that "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", which could be read as allowing NSPORTS to establish notability in cases that do not meet GNG, its answer 2 in its FAQ clarifies that "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline." This also makes clear that the presumption established by NSPORTS is rebuttable by showing that GNG is not met.

In the present case, this presumption has been rebutted. This discussion has established without substantial counter-arguments that there are not enough reliable sources about this person to meet WP:GNG and by extension WP:BLP. It follows that based on the policy-informed consensus established in this discussion that the article must be deleted. Sandstein 09:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdellatif Aboukoura

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Abdellatif Aboukoura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meets WP:NFOOTY, but fails WP:GNG completely. Mentioned in one source which isn't independent[1], and got one line in another source (reliable? importance?)[2]. None of the 39 Google hits[3] give any indepth attention to him. Considering that this is a current, male player in the US, none of the usual excuses of why no sources are available online seem valid. He may of course become notable later in his career, but for now he is a prime example of why one appearance in a minor (but professional) league, is no guarantee at all of being even remotely notable. Fram (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't too soon, this is an actual consensus here, see here. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for confirming that, for everything they claim in discussions on WP:NSPORTS, the football people are just as bad as the cricket people when it comes to defend non-notable players who meet an arbitrary threshold but don't have a single shred of evidence that they are already anywhere near meeting the GNG. WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL apply to all articles, speculation that someone will become notable is all fine and dandy, but articles should only be created when this has actually happened. No idea why this should be different for football players, apart from the sheer number of football fans on here who can disregard normal procedures for their pet articles. Fram (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for confirming that various WikiProjects' worst fears about your proposed changes are correct. Nominating an article about a 16 year old who made his professional soccer debut for deletion within 90 minutes of the article being created?! GiantSnowman 09:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what about it? If i had nominated it today, would that have made any difference at all? Would there be either more sources, or would any of you have voted otherwise? No, of course not. If your worst fears are that you will need an actual indepth source for an article about a current American sportsperson, then you seriously need to rethink your priorities and your goal, and whether they are still inline with the general requirements of Enwiki. Yes, your worst fear is apparently that sports biographies can no longer ignore the general requirements and continue creating articles for not yet notable persons as much as they want to. If you needed confirming that I and many others oppose this, then you should reread what I wrote. This article is exactly the kind of article that my NSPORTS proposal targets, what else did you expect? That it was a proposal with no consequences? I don't know why you act surprised or shocked here. Fram (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine a child actor gets nominated for an Oscar. Someone creates a stub straight away on the basis that they are presumed to meet GNG as a result. Will there be in-depth articles immediately? No. Will there be a day, a week, a month later? Yes. That principle applies here. GiantSnowman 09:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You really think that a child actor who is good enough to receive a nomination, won't have received indepth attention prior to it for his acting role? (Never mind that we have 20 oscar nominations per year for acting, but a few 1000 soccer debuts per year in the pro leagues). The problem (well, one of the problems) is that the bar for some sports is so much lower than the comparison you make, and that it isn't certain at all that they will get more attention (or more matches). It may happen, or they may fade into obscurity. Until the sources exist, no article should be made (a redirect perhaps, if a good target exists, e.g. a team-season article). To make a perhaps better comparison in the same vein, we don't create articles for actors who have had their first named but minor role in a minor Hollywood movie. Yes, they are "professional" actors, playing in a major league, and yet they aren't automatically notable. Fram (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of this would be a problem if there were, you know, actual sources available to flesh out the article that don't end in -occerway. SportingFlyer T·C 10:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If only you directed half the attention you do to soccer articles as should be done to minor politicians/actors/musicians etc... GiantSnowman 11:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage on the subject. I can't find a single indepth article about the subject and none has been presented in this Afd. WP:NFOOTY does not supersede the general notability guideline, passing WP:NFOOTY only means that there supposedly enough significant coverage on the subject for it to pass the general notability guideline and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The subject still has to have significant coverage which Aboukoura does not have. Alvaldi (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should read WP:NFOOTY. Literally states at the top showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below, which, for association football, Aboukoura meets the sports specific criteria. Heck, if you check the top of Wikipedia:Notability, you will literally read It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right"... the key words being either and or which, again, Aboukoura meets. We also do have a consensus that younger players just starting their careers who meet WP:NFOOTY are presumed notable. So I am not sure if you are correct here. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFOOTY does not supersede WP:GNG. The FAQ from the top of WP:NFOOTY clearly states as much:

Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

(JoelleJay's answer here below also goes into this in detail). And there is absolutely no consensus that younger players starting there career have any leeway from the WP:GNG. The consensus is clearly stated in WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Alvaldi (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand the NFOOTY presumption, but Loudoun United is a reserve team, and he has not yet received WP:GNG-qualifying coverage. In other circumstances, I'd advocate draftifying or even keeping - I don't mind the rule active young players who play one WP:NFOOTY-qualifying match can be kept as long as there's some information about them - but, combined with the reserve team element, there's a paucity of anything written about him. WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I am not sure I get deleting because he happened to make his debut for a reserve team. Yeah, Loudoun is the reserve side of D.C. United but they are technically separate entities between Major League Soccer and USL Championship. The "reserve sides" in USL are supposed to meet professional standards that are no different from all the other clubs, including the independents. They are required to sign players to professional contracts who are not contracted to their MLS team and, if the MLS team does wants to call them up, they have to sign a separate contract (the short-team deal being just one of the methods used)... another example is a player like Jared Stroud who was signed by New York Red Bulls II in March 2018 and then had to sign a separate Major League Soccer deal when he was "called-up" into the first team. Even players like Aboukoura need to sign an Amateur contract in order to play, which are limited, and no different to what other USLC clubs are allowed. If anything, this is similar to when a club in say, the Premier League, plays a youth squad player who hasn't signed his first contact yet, just in USL Championship.
So again, I just don't agree with the reserve team thing. Yeah, Loudoun is the reserve team but it isn't like how FC Barcelona B is the reserve team to FC Barcelona and their is complete free movement. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, my argument for deleting is that he completely fails WP:GNG. And if this is true, we should take a look at USL being a FPL. SportingFlyer T·C 13:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Youth players in every club sign academy contracts, whether in Europe or the America's. Almost every French player, for example, is on a youth contract until they turn fully pro - and often have caps and significant coverage before they do so. Also, how can Abdellatif Aboukoura fail GNG, when he has a sporting profile on major footballing aggregates like USSDA, ESPN, MaisFutebol, Tribuna etc? Frankly, I think pretending having a profile on major sports websites should count towards notability, and would be ridiculous to pretend otherwise. And he's mentioned in dozens of game analysis, which to me makes him pass GNG as part of WP:NOTROUTINE.@SportingFlyer:--Ortizesp (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that he is mentioned in "dozens" of game analysis, he hardly gets to "dozens" of mentions if you include Wikipedia-mirrors. Or do you mean the many sites copying the same games results and statistics? That's not "analysis", that's the most basic and robotic summary. There is e.g. no one at Tribuna or at MaisFutebol who has actually entered the information for Aboukoura into their website (never mind checked it), they just automatically copy some other websites. Having X websites each posting all the exact same statistical information is not an indication of notability, no matter what the barely used essay WP:NOTROUTINE tries to say (basically voiding WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOT). Fram (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the robotic summary is good enough since they are from reliable sources. And I think his mentions below in various sporting events that may or may not be WP:NOTROUTINE add to the argument to keep the page: non-routine game report, youth contract, game report, pre-game report, pre game report, youth report. I doubt either side is going to see eye to eye, since I think passing WP:FOOTY is and should be equivalent to passing WP:GNG, and clearly my threshold for notability is lower than yours.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why should sports bios have a standard of SIGCOV so utterly divorced from the SIGCOV required for every other bio? JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If only Aboukoura were also a professor... SportingFlyer T·C 19:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are pretending that databases can't count as SIGCOV... as if several of these don't provide more than enough reliable information to create a page. If you guys wish, you are free to start a Professorpedia, or argue for looser requirements for academia instead of potentially destroying thousands of articles.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretending? Databases have never been considered automatic SIGCOV. From NSPORT: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases. From N: Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. None of the databases linked above have anything more than routine match stats and certainly do not provide direct, in-depth coverage of the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said databases always provide automatic SIGCOV, they may or may not. But the match stats I think are WP:NOTROUTINE, and the databases (such as ESPN) sometimes do provide in-depth coverage of subjects (althought admittedly not of Aboukoura in this case). However, I think the supplementary articles as well as passing NFOOTY as it stands is enough to make it kept.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a "supplementary article" which spends more than a sentence on Aboukoura, and as has been said, WP:NOTROUTINE is an essay which basically contradicts our guidelines and policies in an attempt to justify having articles like this one. How statistics given for every match can be considered anything but routine coverage is not made clear, never mind how such stats can be seen as indepth coverage of the player. It's just a bunch of websites all repeating each other with a different layout and ads, it's not as if people are actively creating profiles of Aboukoura on those sites. Fram (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then go argue against WP:NOTROUTINE, as it stands I think it validates keeping this page.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPORTCRIT is clear databases don't count as SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 22:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting, sometimes they can, sometimes they can't.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict In order: Our Sports Central appears to have reprinted a press release of a match report, and match reports don't count for notability; Arlington Soccer is functionally a press release promoting the fact that Aboukoura played there; kicker.de is simply a statistical match report; The Daily Miami News appears to be a copyvio of Black and Red United, which is a fan blog; Black and Red United is said fan blog (they're the same article); and Top Drawer Soccer just lists a heap of players who are available for a youth camp. None of those come close to qualifying for WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notable enough to me, especially when combined with the quality databases.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NSPORT is clear that for notability purposes a topic must meet GNG. That a minority of editors continue to misunderstand the second sentence (which is for temporary sourcing purposes) or ignore the explicit intent of NSPORT entirely does not make a BLP suddenly magically immune to GNG requirements. JoelleJay (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but why are you using half a sentence to make a point? The full sentence is The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. the key here being or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Go down to Association football and you see Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football which Aboukoura does satisfy. We have had past AfD's like the one I referenced here where the consensus is that for a young player just starting their career who at least satisfies WP:NFOOTY, they are presumed notable. So we are not ignoring the anything, this is literally a consensus by the wiki footballing community. If you would like to make a sitewide change for footballers, be my guest and propose and discuss but this article does satisfy the criteria and the general consensus. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the FAQs at the very top of the page:

Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

The first sentence of NSPORT also says This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The close of this well-attended RfC reaffirmed the status of NSPORT as subordinate to GNG: There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. NFOOTY (or any other sports SNG) is not a guideline outside of NSPORT; it is specifically held to NSPORT criteria which presumes a subject will meet GNG. This is acknowledged by almost all admins who have actually read and understand the notability guidelines. See, for example, the closing statements for the vast majority of recent closely-contested athlete AfDs:
athlete AfDs from the last few weeks
JoelleJay (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so per the FAQ you presented above, the answer is that sources must eventually be presented to pass GNG, not that from the very moment the article is created. The second sentence in that answer indicates that the line referenced is to emphasize that there must be a reliable source indicating that the article is at least "meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline. which, Aboukoura does. He played at least 13 minutes in the first game of the season in a WP:FPL, which clearly satisfies WP:NFOOTY.
Also, I am referencing WP:N, where is clearly states at the top "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:" and "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right". There is a standing consensus on WP:NFOOTY that for players like this, who are just starting their careers, are young, currently active with a WP:NFOOTY that they are considered notable. IF you disagree, you are more than welcome to start a discussion and we can have a wiki-wide AfD. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We had such a wiki-wide RfC recently, resulting in this change: this clarifies that while SNGs (like NFOOTY) give a presumption of notability, the article subject still needs to have the coverage required to meet the GNG if it wants to have a standalone article. The "presumption" is a general indicator, but when challenged (e.g. at AfD) evidence must be produced that this presumption is in this case correct. Otherwise we would simply say "A topic merits an article", not "is presumed to merit an article". Fram (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I have read that section a few times now and I can't see at any time where it says "Every single article on wikipedia absolutely needs to meet WP:GNG from the moment it is created, WP:SNG's be damned" and honestly, it wouldn't make sense to have anything else besides WP:GNG if that was the case. For example, what is the point of anything in WP:NFOOTY or even WP:FPL? You might as well just say that an article on a player or manager must meet GNG from creation instead of even having discussions on what leagues count as fully-professional or not. But no, this argument, from my perspective, does not work. None of those guidelines are absolutely explicit and we have had general consensus allowing young players leeway with Spiderone (talk · contribs) giving a great response in the last link: "the player passed WP:NFOOTBALL a few hours ago, making his debut in the top tier of Scottish football. We give leeway in such cases because of the likelihood that they will build on such appearances. Deleting articles that only just pass the SNG should only really apply in cases where the player has been playing outside of the professional level for several years and is extremely unlikely to ever play at that level again. Otherwise, we will just end up AfDing every single player on the day that they make their debut and it would get silly."
The purpose of NSPORT is to permit articles on actually notable subjects to exist in mainspace with just a single source demonstrating the subject is presumed notable per the relevant SSG; this protects them from being immediately targeted for deletion (due to lack of multiple SIGCOV), particularly in cases where a standard BEFORE might not be sufficient to find offline or non-English sources. Ideally, if the SSGs were correctly calibrated to GNG, this would save editor time by reducing the number of BEFOREs/AfDs, as people familiar with the SSG won't bother with scrutinizing the notability of the topic if they feel confident in the SSG's presumption of notability. However, it has become extremely clear that almost all SSGs are uncoupled from the GNG to the extent that certain SSG criteria are decidedly poor predictors of GNG, necessitating more BEFOREs/AfDs to keep up with the high rates of creation. Also, Dylan Reid debuted at the highest level of Scottish football, while Aboukoura is in the USL -- these are not equivalent leagues with equivalent coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So again, this is a young player, 16 years old, who has played in a WP:FPL, has a decent amount of time on the pitch in the first game of the season who is still on the roster and most likely to continue playing. We have a general consensus that these articles pass, especially when they're young and likely to continue playing. If anything, you are trying to enforce this discussion which hasn't even been completed and is still being discussed and still would just say that these types of articles are discouraged but not "not allowed at all". And for me, I don't just mass create articles but I will make them when an American-based player does make their debut and make sure that we are following the basics of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many players already have received attention before their debut, and then get additional attention once they have actually played. Claiming that one couldn't make articles about debut players if this rule was applied is not true, see e.g. Bart Verbruggen: debut this weekend, the article doesn't have additional sources, but plenty of sources are available, e.g. De Morgen, BN DeStem, Sporza and older ones as well([4]). The requirement that such sources exist is not an insurmountable burden or some anti-football ploy, and a project-consensus that debutants can have their articles without actually having indepth sources is a worthless local consensus which encourages the creation of such articles, but has no value in actual discussion like this one. The proposal at NSPORTS just wants to make it more obvious that one shouldn't create articles without at least one source which counts towards the GNG, but in the end that requirement already exists. There is no harm in waiting until the sources which are sure to come (according to the keepers here) actually materialize, then you a) are sure that the topic meets the GNG, and b) have something to actually write an article instead of regurgitating some minimal statistics. Fram (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have sources and references to the player, you just don't like them because you are trying to prove a point. And there is harm in waiting to make the page, you're going to waste an incredible amount of time AFDing pages that are just going to have pages anyways - most if not all which have valid arguments for being kept. Not sure what pains you so much about having these extra sportsperson articles, it's not like you are paying for Wikipedia's servers yourself.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"And there is harm in waiting to make the page, you're going to waste an incredible amount of time AFDing pages that are just going to have pages anyways"??? If people would wait to make those pages until the sources are there, there wouldn't be any reason to AfD them. As for "you just don't like the sources", well, true, but not because I want to make a point, but because they are in general not accepted as giving any notability to subjects. It's like a painting that is in the collection of some museum: it isn't notable because it is in the collection or because it is listed in the database of all museum holdings: it is only notable when it gets significant attention as a painting on its own, with some discussion which goes beyond dimensions, material, school/origin, and date of acquisition. If this is all we have on a painting, it shouldn't have an article. And the same goes for the subject and the sources here. Fram (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the second sentence relates to sourcing for presumption of notability, not for demonstrating notability upon challenge. It is a stand-in, not an eternal replacement for GNG (Q1 says as much). "Eventually" refers to the eventual incorporation of already-existing SIGCOV into the article; it's also dependent on the community having confidence in the criteria presuming notability, which is not the case here. Additionally, WP:N is referring to any SNGs that do supersede GNG (NPROF), which NSPORT does not. But even if it did defer to all SNGs, NSPORT itself makes clear that it is subordinate to GNG. NFOOTY is not a true guideline, it is a rule-of-thumb (SSG) that is beholden to the requirements of NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence literally says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below"... I am pointing out that it passes the second part after or. Nothing up there is definitive.
  • Dependent on community? Mate, the majority here have supported that since this is a young player in a WP:FPL that the article should be kept. It is only you, Fram, and Alvadi going against it, which you all have tried in previous discussions I linked above. I get it, you don't like these stubs but there is a clear consensus in the past that these types of articles are okay.
  • WP:N literally says "or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right... WP:NSPORT is literally on the right. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read any of the FAQs or my response above detailing exactly what the purpose of NSPORT is? Because there shouldn't be any confusion there if you actually comprehend what these say. And I don't know why you're still stuck on what N says (the language there is providing for any SNG that operates separately from GNG, and since only NPROF asserts that status at the moment N does only refer to NPROF as an alternative to GNG), when NSPORT, from the very first sentence, positions all SSGs as needing to meet GNG to merit an article. Why do you think this sentence is there? And by "community" I mean the actual wider WP community (like in the village pump RfC I linked above which closed with a clear consensus on this topic) and not the local consensus of football fans whose low notability threshold is what gets us into all these AfDs in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I read all of it and yeah, I comprehend it all. Not sure why I can't focus on what WP:N says, that is where GNG is and other details, seems to make sense to me. Also... please don't do this... WP:NSPORT literally says "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". I understand what an "or" means in a sentence. Looking through the RfD, there were plenty of discussions regarding sportsmen who could eventually satisfy GNG plus stubs which can eventually be expanded, this article being one of them. There is a very good chance that will happen considering that the subject is only 16 and already playing with a fully-professional club and that we are only 1 game into the season. Also, you're last part about football fans and the low notability threshold seems to hold a lot of the same hostility seen from regular WP:PROF editors in the discussion, as if the consensus being made by football fans or regular football editors means almost nothing. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant what WP:N says because either it says GNG must be met for every SNG, or it says an SNG like NSPORT can establish notability (which it does not), and NSPORT explicitly says its criteria is based on meeting GNG so we're at exactly the same place as before. And what do you think the first sentence in NSPORT is there for, if not to establish NSPORT as a predictor of and ultimately dependent upon GNG? How do the following statements from NSPORT make sense if you interpret the "or" as if it applies to determining notability rather than demonstrating there is sourcing that shows a subject is likely to meet GNG sourcing?

The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it.[1][2][3][4] Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.

In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements for those types of articles.

The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics).

(Also see the rest of WP:SPORTCRIT). These statements are also predicated on the subject already having GNG coverage that editors just haven't found yet; "eventually" obviously does not apply to BLPs that demonstrably fail GNG now but might have SIGCOV in the future. That is what WP:DRAFTIFY is for. JoelleJay (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that he has WP:NOTROUTINE coverage, and that combined with the various references and database supplementing we have enough to pass WP:GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per consensus at the Dylan Reid AfD. A near-identical case. It's worth noting that players very rarely show a clear passing of GNG when they debut. Heck, even Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo were stubs at one point. NSPORT is still a guideline with value and while I agree that GNG is the guideline that ultimately all articles on sportspeople must meet, I believe that it would be disruptive to enforce it on a player that has literally just made their professional debut. There is clear consensus from previous discussions that we give a little bit of leeway (exactly how much leeway is, of course, a matter for some debate) in such cases to allow the article to be built while their career progresses. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does USL guarantee the same amount and depth of coverage as a Premiership league does? Because if not, these are very different cases. JoelleJay (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: Dylan Reid had marginal coverage, including from the BBC. Aboukoura has none yet. SportingFlyer T·C 10:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure how much coverage the USL generally gets as I'm British. I did think it would be similar to the English Championship, though. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to dip into WP:OTHERSTUFF for a moment here. There's a confusing amount of discrepency between how WP:FOOTY handles the U.S. vs England. Like NPSL or USL League Two teams here might not fit WP:GNG but a team from the tenth division like Ollerton Town F.C. or Elburton Villa F.C. get pages. Taking that to the professional level the amount of coverage varies a ton from team to team in the U.S. since each market has different interest levels. A team like Louisville City FC is going to get more coverage than any reserve team or the Charlotte Independence. If that makes sense. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm a USL player will receive nowhere near the same amount of coverage as a Championship player. A Championship player, even a marginal one, will likely have nationwide coverage in England. As ColeTrain4EVER points out, a USL player may not even be covered in their home city or town (which is the case here) because the league receives no national coverage at all and coverage will vary from city to city depending on how popular the team is. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He made an appearance in a league listed on WP:FPL. Loudoun United is a professional team and that makes him WP:GNG. I hate to be this blunt while everyone is talking about sources and it being a reserve team, but that follows the method set point blank. If the method set by WP:FOOTY is problem that shouldn't be discussed here. Under the current rules he fits it. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say being on a FPL team "makes [someone] GNG"? That is just flatly a fabrication. JoelleJay (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football Number 2. Quote, "Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable." Please also note I did not say just "being on a FPL team" makes them notable. I said making an appearance does. Aboukoura has done that. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passing WP:NFOOTY only means that the subject supposedly is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and hence pass the general notability guideline as is stated on the top of WP:NSPORT (right above the FAQ that explains in detail that the SNG's don't supersede the general notability guideline). Like so many similiar one-game-woners, Aboukoura has no coverage, only trivial mentions and database entries that don't go towards GNG as is clearly stated in WP:NSPORT. How a person nobody cares to write about can be considered notable is honestly quite baffling. And arguments that a subject is young and might get the coverage later is exactly the reason we have WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Alvaldi (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spiderone. this all seems quite WP:POINTY to me. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:TOOSOON, no significant coverage, does not pass WP:GNG. The presumption of notability made by WP:NFOOTY appears to be demonstrably false here. List at WP:BTWN if he turns out to be the next Messi. —Kusma (t·c) 12:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG, and that is what actually matters here; even more so when the SNG clearly does not serve it's primary objective (as a guide to the likelihood of meeting GNG) for subjects barely scraping over its very low bar. The local consensus of the footy project is irrelevant. Predictions of future career progression and coverage are worthless. The article can be recovered and recreated should significant coverage ever materialise. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This individual hasn't been noticed by any significant secondary sources; they do not magically become notable because they stepped onto a pitch (and were entered into some database(s)). If this individual was truly notable for appearing in a certain game, it would have been reported in sources and they would pass the GNG. NFOOTY is a presumption of notability, but as Kusma said above, the presumption here is false - the individual is simply not (yet) notable. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is ridiculous. You know what, let's get rid of WP:NFOOTY and WP:NSPORT. They're basically useless if everything is going to boil back down to WP:GNG. Like, it literally makes no sense to have either of those if we are not going to discuss the nuance of the situation and just boil it all down to GNG. Forget debating consistently on what makes a fully-professional league, forget having standards on WP:NSPORT. What's the point? A player in the Uganda Premier League would be notable if they had considerable coverage despite playing in a non-professional league while a player in the South African Premier Division would be deleted if they made 1 appearance despite playing in a league deemed fully-professional... so what is the point? You tell me. I would get if Aboukoura was 28 years old, his only WP:FPL season was at the age of 18 and he has since stopped playing professionally, I get it. But he is 16, he just started his career in a fully-professional league, the second top league in the United States, and is still an active player in his club's roster after the first game of the season. We can safely presume his notability based on that and we have in the past in discussions like this.
But i get it. Ya'll are trying to make a point because you're frustrated with these policies. You don't like that a player like this is "notable" while a professor or academic is not. If that is the case, get rid of these other policies and make GNG the only rule. Go for it. It's quite telling to me that the only people in delete are those who don't even edit football related articles, I'm not surprised though. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your Uganda/South Africa example is exactly how it's supposed to work, though. We can't write articles on people who haven't been significantly independently covered, especially BLPs, which is the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So get rid of them and keep it to just GNG, that is my point. Why should ColeTrain4EVER (talk · contribs) above have to consistently debate why the National Independent Soccer Association is fully-professional if that basically doesn't matter at all? If you want to make it that strict, go nuclear. Set strong standards and go with it. There is no point in debating why a professor is notable or a politician or even an athlete if there is just one actual way to be notable... no leeway, no assumptions, just needs to be basically perfect from creation. Personally find it to be a great way to dissuade users and has a very hard bias against non-Western athletes and women's sports but whatever, I doubt you guys even care. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every sports biography does ultimately have to meet GNG, though - that's pretty clear from both WP:NSPORT and the 2017 RfC. What WP:NFOOTY does is guides us to which leagues should have had all of their players significantly covered by virtue of them being professional, meaning we can assume players are notable - but if an article's under-sourced and I look up sources and can't find any, it doesn't matter if you've played 50 games in the Premiership, we can't keep the article (though playing 50 games in the Premiership is basically as close to automatic notability as exists, that's because you'll have been significantly covered.) In short, WP:NFOOTY should always predict whether GNG is met, though it sometimes doesn't. The SNG can't save the article if we can't write an article based on reliable, independent, secondary coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So then, why have it? Just guide everyone that a footballer/coach needs to meet WP:GNG and be done with it. If that is how strict you want it to be, this guy and this guy are basically out for the count. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Harriel would be at worst draftified, he did receive some coverage on his signing but the Union II didn't seem to be covered that significantly. Dennis Waidner has many sources available on the German page, many of them are from FC Bayern's website but I punched his name into tz.de and brought up a good amount of coverage as well, not all SIGCOV, but enough to piece together an article. This article has none of that. SportingFlyer T·C 00:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should guide everyone toward finding GNG coverage for every article created, that's the ultimate goal of WP:N and WP:NSPORT. The GNG-based SNGs (like NSPORT) are just there to give an editor a) an idea of who is likely to be notable, so they don't waste their time trying to write about someone who isn't; and b) make it less of a burden on NPP/AfD/etc. by providing a reliable indicator that SIGCOV in multiple IRS is very likely to exist, so no need to pay too much attention to a stub sourced only to a database if they meet the SNG. But if someone actually tries to expand the article and discovers there isn't SIGCOV, the presumption of notability is nullified and the page goes to AfD. And when this happens regularly, as it clearly does in several sports, articles with similar SNG metrics start to get scrutinized more frequently. If NPROF didn't supersede GNG, many us here would be arguing just as strongly to root out all the non-notable academics -- in fact, the majority of my AfD !votes have been doing exactly that within the bounds of NPROF criteria. So please don't assume this is all a pointed attack on a specific sport or sports in general. JoelleJay (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Hey, I've only been here a few minutes! What's going on?"
In all honesty yeah it's a bit trying when there are two separate thresholds like this let alone the fact that USL does not get a lot of coverage, on average. There's been multiple attempts to discuss this on WP:FPL, including one right now about USL1 that (shocker) no one is commenting on, and it sometimes feels like we're trying to make a broad definition but instead its turning more case by case. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably oppose to that. Technically, Loudoun United isn't a "reserve side" like say FC Barcelona B but are actually a separate entity and "affiliate" of D.C. United. They still have to sign players to full-time contracts and are limited in academy players that can be used. They also have to follow the same standards as other USL Championship clubs. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Loudoun United is an MLS-"owned" side, not an MLS-"affiliated" side. This means that DC United has full control over them. "Affiliated" sides include Las Vegas Lights FC, which is affiliated with the LA Galaxy but is independently owned and controlled. There are also fully independent USL teams like New Mexico United with no affiliation with an MLS team. Whether there should be a difference between "Owned" and truly independent sides in terms of notability is debatable, but the "affiliated" sides are generally as well covered as the truly independent ones and I would be opposed to limiting notability on them. However, as noted Loudoun United is not "affiliated" but "owned" by an MLS team. Smartyllama (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether the purpose of the SNG is indeed to render it permanently notable or simply, as JoelleJay said to "protect them from being immediately targeted for deletion", it is clear that it was inappropriate to target this for deletion mere hours after the article was created. Smartyllama (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Smartyllama, the protection is for articles on subjects who do have SIGCOV that just isn't in the article yet; this one has been verified as entirely failing GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The long-standing consensus here has been to wait to create articles for new players until they have their first professional debut (and meeting the SNG), which is what Aboukoura did last weekend, during his new team's first match of the season. Immediately asking such an article for deletion complete disregards the long-established consensus here, and is going to create havoc if we have to have a debate everytime a young player makes a first-team debut. No prejudice against revisiting this in half-a-decade or so, if they are never heard from again. Nfitz (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should definitely not have a poorly-sourced BLP of a child sitting around in mainspace, especially not for the whole 1.5 more years he'll be a minor, on the off chance he gets significant media attention at some point. There is ZERO reason not to draftify and wait until he meets GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is the fact that the subject is a minor relevant? Nehme1499 22:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has no bearing, given they are a fully-professional soccer player, who has played on a fully-professional team. The prejudice here is stunning! Nfitz (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BLP rules make no difference between professional soccer players and others. Also, while "fully professional" is used as a bright line standard in WP:NFOOTY, it seems to be far less of a predictor in terms of passing or failing WP:GNG notability. —Kusma (t·c) 06:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus across Wikipedia is to wait until a subject receives significant coverage in reliable sources. It creates havoc when articles are created based solely on some arbitrary measure like stepping onto a pitch, rather than assessing whether the wider world has actually reported on the subject to deem them notable. Most of the time, stepping onto a pitch means they will have received coverage in reliable sources. But if they haven't - reliable sources haven't significantly reported on them because the sources don't yet deem this subject notable - we shouldn't deem them notable either. Why should Wikipedia consider this individual notable when the wider world of reliable sources has not? -M.Nelson (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly a lot of interest in this specific article, no clear consensus and need for further discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Glad to see some myths about WP:NFOOTBALL being exploded in this discussion. Others are correct that "fully professionalism" is an arbitrary invention which (insofar as it exists at all) has no relationship whatsoever to notability. The idea that non-notable young players from certain preferred leagues be "given leeway" is also palpable nonsense. Ultimately WP:GNG has to be the standard applied and this guy, like thousands of other sub-stubs predicated on stat listings, is still miles away from it. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdellatif_Aboukoura&oldid=1023961519"