Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godfrey Poku


 * 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.  Wifione  Message 04:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Godfrey Poku

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Semi-pro football player who has never played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL Night of the Big Wind  talk  10:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL by never having played in a fully-professional league or at senior international level, and no evidence of enough non-trivial media coverage to show general notability. Struway2 (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - what part of WP:GNG am I missing? There are several examples of significant in-depth news coverage cited in the article, for example this one, this one and this one in particular, not to mention the smaller articles on the BBC website. Sionk (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing the part that some wiseguys decided that only players who play or played in a fully professional league are eligable for an article. Night of the Big Wind  talk  01:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not WP:GNG, but WP:NSPORTS. Anyone that meets the criteria of WP:GNG is entitled to their own article, are they not? Sionk (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * True. But if people start nominating players who acts on the highest level in their country with the excuse that they don't play in a fully professional league, I have no problem/mercy applying that rule at other players not acting on the highest level in their country and not playing/having played in a fully professional league. Night of the Big Wind  talk  02:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop talking about WP:NFOOTBALL. We're all agreed Poku doesn't meet those criteria. However, he patently does meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. News items are routine coverage and fail WP:NTEMP. --Jimbo[online] 19:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is one of the most ridiculous AfD's I've ever come across. In what way are the 3 articles I highlighted 'routine' or 'trivial'? Sionk (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles in local rags about players at non-League clubs appear all the time. There's nothing note-worthy in those articles whatsoever. --Jimbo[online] 23:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to take a long hard look at those sources. The information is not trivial, nor is the coverage a mere passing mention. Calling them "local rags" doesn't change anything. For example, there is an entire news article on this player that was written by the The Guardian. The Guardian news article is not just a simple local newspaper reporting on some local player. The article is quite in depth. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  22:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Epping Forest Guardian is not the same as The Guardian, but I totally agree with your sentiment, of course. These are major articles with Poku as the main subject in respectable newspapers with a keen readership. Sionk (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, that article did not appear in The Guardian, but rather in a local paper with a partially similar name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes the GNG, and that's all the matters. I don't see that the sources cited are all as crappy as Jimbo suggests, and there's no requirement for every biography to neatly fit one of the notability sub-criteria. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a load of local newspapers who publish everything about their local club, a load of webpages belonging to his employer, and seven independent sources (6x BBC, 1x Enquirer) of which 1 has trivial mentions, 1 don't mention him at all and 4 are transfer related. Summurized: crappy sources. Night of the Big Wind  talk  16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sionk. mabdul 11:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, ditto per Sionk on keep and other points. Pseudofusulina (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, In a response to an above comment. Articles should always be clearly assessed before nomination to make sure they don't meet WP:GNG not just because they don't meet WP:NFOOTY. If WP:NFOOTY is failed they can still have their own article if they meet GNG. However i agree with the nominator the sources are mostly routine i.e match reports and comments and are not enough to meet WP:GNG. Im open to changing my mind if better sources can be found. Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep After looking things over, I'm going to come down on the side of him meeting GNG based on the sources provided. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 01:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep largely per Sionk. I fully agree, the subject does not meet WP:NFOOTY. With that said, the subject has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources and meets the general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for biographies. He is the primary topic of many of the sources already used in the article. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  22:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, but he still haven't played in a fully professional league... And most sources are not independent (club websites) or local newspapers with routine coverage. Night of the Big Wind  talk  02:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the general notability guidelines do not require specific achievements. It merely requires significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Out of the 27 sources used in the article, 8 of the sources are first party sources. The other 19 sources are high quality third party news articles with a substantial amount of information. It is not "local newspapers with routine coverage", unless you consider every newspaper in a given country to be "local coverage" and entire news articles on the person to be "routine coverage". Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * keep local nature of sources has nothing to do with GNG. Folks seem to otherwise agree sourcing is fine (in depth etc.). Hobit (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Compelling argument subject passes WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2012 (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.