Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abba Bichi


 * 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. A clear consensus here for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Abba Bichi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable youth footy player, fails WP:NFOOTY and fails all other notability criteria afaict. these sources are dubious, poorly written pieces as well. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources.  Eyebeller  00:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How exactly do they meet nfooty and what coverage is there, ? GRINCHIDICAE🎄  00:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Meeting WP:NFOOTY is not required as that is primary additional criteria that indicate notability. Coverage is in the provided sources.   Eyebeller  00:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you even read them? I have serious doubts about your judgement in this case, if you are claiming that those poorly written pieces are somehow in depth, reliable coverage. GRINCHIDICAE🎄  00:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I did read them. Did you?  Eyebeller  00:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We can go back and forth on this but which of these is indepth and reliable? Is it the guardian.ng puff piece with no byline? Or the stats listing? Or the puff pieces sourced to blatant non-rs that didn't even bother to spell check? GRINCHIDICAE🎄  00:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Being well-written is not a requirement for WP:GNG.  Eyebeller  00:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lesson. No one said it was. But reliable sources don't publish PR gibberish. Being published somewhere != reliable source. So which of these sources are reliable and independent? GRINCHIDICAE🎄  00:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources are better here than they are at Draft:Michael C. Grayson which has duplicate sources and which you marked as reviewed.  Eyebeller  00:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Eyebeller, I don't see where Praxidicae reviewed that draft. The only thing I see in the history is a UDP tag. Blablubbs | talk 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad, didn't see that it was a draft.  Eyebeller  01:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple of them are and I don't see why this should be deleted when other articles with worse sources were marked as reviewed by yourself.  Eyebeller  00:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude, but you really should substantiate that statement, and probably at a more appropriate venue.. Waggie (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that the most significant coverage of the subject cited in the article,, alleges that Bichi was added to the Nigerian U17 team as bribery, a claim that is not included anywhere in the actual article. signed,Rosguill talk 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: The references, in order: 1) A profile, provided by the player's agent, 2) An interview on a website where their "Advertise with us" page clearly supports advertorials ("Our team of strategists, researchers, designers, filmmakers and developers will work with you to create compelling editorial, graphical and video content, for distribution across our platforms and beyond.") on a site that looks like it's trying to rip-off The Guardian, 3) looks somewhat journalistic, 4) Interview (which looks suspiciously like a press release) in a paper trying to rip-off The Sun where the "journalist" is using the Slack logo as their avatar, 5) no by-line, interview, 6) another interview, by "MU", remarkably similar (or identical) to other sources), 7) another interview. With almost every single source not meeting WP:RS, it's clear that Praxidicae has this one pegged quite accurately. Waggie (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read the sources and not just look at the first few lines?  Eyebeller  01:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I read everyone of them in detail. Asking me if I read them is immaterial, however. Can you refute any of the statements I made about ANY of the sources? Waggie (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It will be a waste of my time to read them all again, but from first glance, yes.  Eyebeller  01:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're going to accuse me of not reading the sources, then it's not a waste of your time. If you can refute, then do so, if not, then please retract your statement. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your negativity on reliable sources is concerning.  Eyebeller  01:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your complete and total lack of understanding of sources and inability to back up a statement you've made is far more concerning and I suggest you stop doubling down. Thanks. GRINCHIDICAE🎄  01:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I already told you, I'll stop reviewing as obviously the process hates me. Please also bear in mind that I'm really tired as this nonsense has kept me up for an hour now.  Eyebeller  01:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No one is keeping you here. You are continuing to double down on statements for which you cannot back up, so you cannot be surprised that you are being called out for it. GRINCHIDICAE🎄  01:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I bet you're really happy that you've lost an unhelpful AfC reviewer who never did anything good but at least you get your AfD.  Eyebeller  01:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, although I do disagree with part of Waggie's source assessment. Source #2 is The Guardian (Nigeria), although it's the less-professional-looking mobile site (here's a better link). The most recent RSN discussion about this source suggests that the paper is relatively good by Nigerian standards, but varies in quality. For the article being cited, we can see that there's no byline, which is a bad sign. Coupled with citation #3, which claims that Abba Bichi, son of Yusuf Magaji Bichi, was added to the U17 team as a political favor (and further supported by this article I found on Sahara Reporters, ), I think there's reason to believe that this is indeed a paid ad and unreliable (which is probably true about this Wikipedia article as well). There may be a case for adding content about the corruption reporting to Yusuf Magaji Bichi and converting this page to a redirect. signed,Rosguill talk 01:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  08:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  08:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  08:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  08:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete- I agree that coverage is not significant, and this fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Meeting NFOOTBALL is not required.  Eyebeller  13:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I completely agree with the deletion arguments and have nothing to add on top of those as they've hit the nail on the head Spiderone  12:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Mr. @ can go back and forth by saying that meeting WP:NFOOTBALL is not required, but the article simply does not meet WP:GNG either. MYS 77 ✉  03:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete- agree with deletion arguments PangolinPedia  08:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete created multiple times in draft, Draft:Abba Yusuf Bichi still doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:BASIC Was part of U17 team, but before that was playing in China in what's not considered a top tier league but only U17 or younger. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.