Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axel Tuanzebe


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Axel Tuanzebe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Original PROD was removed without any explanation via an edit summary, but the user (User:Anishchand99) did claim on my talk page "You know he is certain to make his preseason debut and he will 100% get his senior debut in the league and if not then at least in the europa or the league cup." Obviously this is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and this article should be deleted ASAP. – PeeJay 15:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions (done by User:PeeJay2K3). Qed237&#160;(talk) 16:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The played made his debut today Vs Wigan. Page should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martynww (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Playing in friendly matches does not confer notability. – PeeJay 16:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject definitely fails WP:NFOOTBALL, having played in no competitive fixtures in his career. Although there is some coverage in some newspapers, it does not seem to be beyond the normal attention of a talented youngster playing for a big side such as United so would fail WP:GNG in my opinion. Simply being at the club does not make a player notable. Will probably make his debut soon enough but that would be against WP:CRYSTAL, so delete for now. Kosack (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly not notable. Maybe WP:TOOSOON but who knows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velella (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm seeing a lot of media coverage in the last week alone on this player in major dailies, such as and  among others. I'm also seeing some older in-depth coverage of this player such as  and . Player meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clear case of WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - He has not played in a fully professional league and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Can be restored if he ever plays professionally. Number   5  7  23:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for the time being; player does not yet meet the notability guidelines. — foxj 03:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am agreeing with Nfitz, I too am seeing media coverage of Axel Tuanzebe and this article is for me complying with WP:GNG. I am looking him up here after seeing news report. If I am understanding notability rules correctly, then (quoting WP:ATHLETE) "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria (SSC, including WP:FOOTY) outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline (GNG)" and so I am thinking that GNG is outweighing SSC. Regards,  Naz &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  10:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And what if he breaks his leg tomorrow and never plays again? Is he still notable then? A career of just one friendly is NOT notable, regardless of the media coverage of his youth exploits. – PeeJay 16:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As in any case where WP:GNG is met, if they die tomorrow, they still met WP:GNG yesterday. This is as true of a minister of the crown, as it is a football player. Nfitz (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above. Just played in a friendly, no need to make an article about such a player. Kante4 (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just played in a friendly? 2 of the 4 articles I noted, and the best 2 in fact, as they are all about him, rather than both being about him and the friendly, came out months before the friendly. If he met WP:GNG before the friendly, why would he not meet it after the friendly? Since I commented yesterday, I see about hundreds of new media articles referencing him - with the coverage being international now, rather than just local; presumably this is because of the friendly - but you need to look deeper than that. Nfitz (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. I note the following about the sources put forward to allegedly satisfy GNG
 * Daily Star - Firstly these are comments relating a pre-season game and long standing consensus is that pre-season appearances in friendly matches are insufficient for notability. Secondly, this is about as far from in depth coverage as is possible - 90 words on an 8 minute substitute appearance.
 * Mirror - I would question whether NFitz or Naz actually read any of the links they found as this is exactly the same quote from Mourinho as used in the previous link, with nothing additional added. There is nothing here to support GNG at all and the article actually devotes the majority of its very short length to a totally different player.
 * Mirror 2 - This goes a little way to establishing GNG, but essentially regurgitates an MUTV interview. This is hardly independent coverage, but could be useful if additional sources were provided.
 * IBT - Again, calls into question whether NFitz or Naz read the sources. Quotes such as Criticism is as good as praise really as it allows you to work on something you're not as good at. There's nothing wrong with criticism, you just take everything in your stride in this and the previous source clearly indicate that both sources are merely regurgitating the same primary source interview from Manchester United's own in-house television channel.
 * Basically, this is a player who has just made a very short substitute appearance for a notable team. He will probably become notable in the future, but a handful of sources duplicating a single brief quote from his manager plus a couple of older "interviews" which merely repeat primary sources. Fenix down (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This person fails WP:NFOOTBALL. As far as I can tell, he hasn't played in any fully-professional league, and I couldn't find a lot of coverage overall. Probably WP:TOOSOON for an article here, perhaps he'll be notable enough in a couple of years.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 08:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I provided above two references from in-depth articles last year that meet WP:GNG (I never said the two recent ones met WP:GNG). These were  and . If I understand the concern with them, is that while one does demonstrate WP:GNG the second is derivative of the firet. Okay then, here are two more articles that are unrelated to the original two.  and ; two different writers, two different countries. These are examples of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:GNG is met. The failure to meet WP:NFOOTBALL is not relevant. Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but think about it - in 50 years, if this guy has never played a professional game in his life, do you think those sources you provided will still assert notability? Sources that indicate someone might have a promising future aren't exactly strong in my book. They'd be fine as sources for a section on his early career once his notability has actually been established, but not for establishing notability in the first place. – PeeJay 07:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition to PeeJay's comments, I am still seeing problems with the sources that you are bringing here, as they are essentially still to a greater or lesser extent mirrors not only of other sources you have already provided, but also derivative of primary source interviews and so not suitable for GNG, specifically:
 * Mirror - large parts of this, specifically quotes from his old P.E. teacher, then quotes from the current school sports coordinator, are repeated verbatim from the earlier Mirror article you cited. Bar a few additional quotes, the June 2016 Mirror article is basically a slight expansion of the same thing they wrote in November 2015, which you already cited above.
 * Sportskeeda - firstly, I would call into question the reliability of this website. Not that it should not be used, but given that pages like this suggest that anyone can submit work, this seems very much like a user-generated news site. Secondly, the major quotes in this article are again regurgitated. The Mourinho quote is exactly the same as the one noted in the very brief Mirror article you linked to earlier, with the Paul McGuinness quote being essentially the same as the second Mirror article.
 * As far as I can see, there are some quotes from people at Manchester United who naturally would have a good opinion of him and these have been rehashed several times over the last six months to produce several articles. What I am not seeing is significant in depth coverage that does not rely on Primary sources for its content. The reason I am not seeing this is that this individual has made an 8 minute appearance in a pre-season friendly, he has done nothing yet in his field to be considered notable. Fenix down (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. It is seeming to me that there is a hare and a tortoise situation here. The hare is for "delete", to be making a WP:POINT perhaps? But the tortoise is not so much being for "keep" as for wait. Seeing the comments being made publicly by Jose Mourinho, it must be possible and even that likely that Tuanzebe will be playing in the FA Community Shield on 7 August, only three weeks time. Surely in case like this one, it is better using some WP:COMMONSENSE and waiting until, let us be saying, the end of August? The player then being indeed part of Mourinho's plans, we will surely be seeing him in first team in August. Can the deletion request not be deferred until then, otherwise it being recreated only three or four weeks after being deleted? Regards,  Naz &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  13:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing POINTy about this nomination. I ask you, how long should we wait before Tuanzebe becomes notable? Just until the Community Shield? What if he doesn't play in that; should we continue waiting? The fact is, he's not notable right now and shouldn't have an article until he is. After all, there's nothing to stop us restoring this article once he makes a noteworthy appearance, he just shouldn't have one right now... – PeeJay 13:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is not pointy, we simply don't make articles about any subject in anticipation of notability. Once he actually plays senior football he will be notable. If the result of this AfD is to delete, I am happy for you or any other editor to notify me when they believe he is notable and I will restore the article to mainspace immediately. Fenix down (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Fenix down. That is fair enough. Thank you. Regards,  Naz &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  14:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Not that playing in tomorrow's friendly would confer notability, but Jose Mourinho just announced that Eric Bailly and Phil Jones will be United's starting centre-backs against Dortmund, so it seems like Tuanzebe is still further away from the starting XI than we thought. Plus, even if he does start any of the friendlies this summer, Mourinho seems to want to try all sorts of defensive combinations, so I wouldn't read anything into who plays on the tour and who doesn't. – PeeJay 14:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. A lot of the above arguments are very WP:CRYSTAL. -  Yellow Dingo &#160; (talk)  02:00, 24 July 2016 (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.