Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Claver (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Much of the sourcing is behind paywalls, and I am unable to assess it here. There is a clear majority in favor of keeping the article and since there certainly is sourcing available, at the very least in form of multiple sports news articles and an interview, that view has merit to it. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Cody Claver
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Footballer with two professional appearances. Nominated in 2019, it was "keep per NFOOTY". NFOOTY no longer exists. Since 2019, the subject has been playing amateur football. BEFORE search turned up no GNG sources; there was a bit of coverage but nothing independent and in-depth. Levivich 18:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football,  and Netherlands. Levivich 18:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - the first AFD was 'no consensus', so saying that it was "keep per NFOOTY" is not fair or accurate. There are sources out there, beyond those already in the article (such as this), see also this from the first page of a Google search for 'Cody Claver voetbal'. GiantSnowman 19:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are sources out there, but not WP:GNG sources. First one isn't in-depth (brief mention in a routine signing announcement), second one isn't independent (interview). Levivich 22:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an independent interview, it's a valid source for GNG.06:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)~ Ortizesp (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - As I argued in the first nomination, the only in-depth coverage we've found is the Leeuwarder Courant article referenced in the article. That's not enough to satisfy the GNG, and consensus should now be clear to delete. Jogurney (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Claver meets the WP:GNG per his BIOGRAPHIES here: Leeuwarder Courant Het Amsterdamsche Voetbal Voetbal247. The claim above about supposed routine coverage is false per WP:NOTROUTINE. The interview claim has equally no merit because the biography section was not part of the interview. Hence my capitalization of the word BIOGRAPHIES. It is important to examine sources more carefully and especially without bias to either side. This bias strongly conflicts with our policies, guidelines, and essays. gidonb (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. The voetbal247.nl source is indeed an interview with the subject of the article and doesn't count as significant coverage (I read the entire interview, and precious little of it covers his footballing exploits anyway). The hetamsterdamschevoetbal.nl source consists of 3 sentences in a routine transfer announcement, which also doesn't count as significant coverage. Bottom line, the article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Read my opinion and the Voetbal247 article again. It does not make sense to me that you cannot find which part of the article is an interview and which part is not. I do not only assume good faith, I also assume good skills! ;-) gidonb (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the entirety of the voetbal247 article that is not written by the article subject: It does not provide barely any independent information about Claver; all the information is Claver being quoted, because it's a Q&A interview. It's not a GNG source because an interview is not independent. The others are not in-depth. Levivich 13:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So obviously this is a complete distortion. The important text starts before, this is not part of the interview but the way the journalist (who is personally signed on the article) presents and analyzes the player, and the third source is also great. There are three sources here that count towards the WP:GNG, where only two are needed. gidonb (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm thoroughly confused by what "good skills" you think I lack. The source contains a few sentences about Claver that are before the interview - which tell us he is an amateur footballer who played a few games for AFC and recorded 4 assists. That's not in-depth coverage at all. If the standard is really that low, we will have articles about hundreds of thousands of amateur footballers who played a few matches and recorded a few assists! Jogurney (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, I assumed you have good skills and faith, and do NOT lack these. You are now assigning me 100% the opposite and did so before as well. That is really unfortunate! Second, "amateurism" and "professionalism" are relative concepts in Dutch soccer because virtually all players at the higher "amateur" levels and all coaches at the same and far beyond get paid. Countries like Holland fake a lot of "amateurism". Nevertheless, we went by professional and played (like Claver) can have an article, in the third tier (supposedly "semiprofessional" or "amateur"; this was a professional league in the past) and played (like Claver) would not have an article but the coverage can still be counted with previous coverage towards the WP:GNG. Now we got rid of WP:NFOOTY (and WP:POLY), there are advantages to that (given said relativism of amateurism and the fact that everything was run by the GNG anyway), and we got an avalanche of nominations. People make wrong assumptions, argue a lot, nominate and renominate, and it's all very time consuming. That part is unfortunate because WP editors generally prefer to work in the article space. There is a group that keeps arguing, keeps nominating, also after they have been proven wrong. Until a few more say that keep is the way to go. Then they suddenly stop arguing and move on to the next article where they can create or enjoy action. This is not about you or any specific person. Just general frustration. gidonb (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  14:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG and BEFORE.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Which two sources pass GNG in your opinion? Levivich 13:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Keep Per arguments of Gidonb and other Keep voters. Elbatli (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Per others above. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 15:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)