Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Madi


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. After three relists, editors remain divided on the merits of the cited sources, and discussion is descending into personal attacks. signed,Rosguill talk 16:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Ibrahim Madi

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

Three appearances for the Comoros national football team and plays in the French fifth division. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found this and this. JTtheOG (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Africa,  and France. JTtheOG (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG, those 2 references added this and this are already enough coveage IMO plus the articles here.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete as I agree that the level of coverage does not warrant an article. I was unable to find secondary sources that don't mention the subject in passing/routine.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 21:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Ortizesp. Young player already with coverage with ongoing international career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources above not enough, the first OK, the second is routine. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: We're evenly split when it comes to a consensus here with three keep !votes and three delete !votes. Relisting for more input. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 11:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ortizesp. TBH I'm not quite sure why we're here when the nom has provided sources that appear to satisfy the plain meaning of the GNG. Anyway, here we have >419 words entirely about the article subject, maybe 300 words after subtracting arguably primary/quote-based content. Here we have at least 189 words (not sure if part of the article is cut off by the paywall), again entirely about the article subject. Here we have an article largely about the article subject, with at least 150 words of concentrated biographical content. All of these relate directly to the article subject; all appear to be published in independent reliable sources; all cover the subject sufficiently directly that they can be cited directly without any concern over original research. All therefore appear to meet the requirements of the GNG (and the standards at WP:NBASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT, which do not seem to materially depart from the GNG here) and particularly the WP:SIGCOV threshold of address[ing] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. -- Visviva (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis and lack of significant coverage identified since. Madi is an amateur footballer, so it's little surprise that the coverage in LNR and LP is routine stuff like thoat match report and contract announcement (although I'll agree with GiantSnowman that the LNR match report has a good bit of background info). The word counts mentioned above are simply not accurate (for example, the LP article dedicates a single sentence to Madi as it is primarily covers another player). Jogurney (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

For the other sources, Visviva is once again egregiously misrepresenting the amount of coverage on the subject. The I called this behavior out I thought it was just carelessness in not reading any of the text and assuming news articles with the subject's name in the title must be entirely about the subject. However, with the inclusion of specific word counts I can't see how this is anything but an attempt at deliberately misleading other editors. Does this need to go to AN? For the La Provence piece, Visviva claims (we have at least 189 words (not sure if part of the article is cut off by the paywall), again entirely about the article subject). This is an utterly routine transfer announcement about multiple players, two of whom are in the title, that in fact contains one single sentence on Madi: For Comorosfootball.com, Visviva claims at least 150 words of concentrated biographical content. Actually the source only has ~60 words of routine transactional material All of which is derived directly from the FC Martigues instagram post:  Furthermore, Comorosfootball.com is a group blog: "Comoros Football 269" is an online media founded on September 16, 2013 based exclusively on Comoros football news. We are young people who have given themselves the courage and love to serve our nation and support our football institutions by informing while promoting Comorian football locally and internationally. Our actions gained momentum in 2014 with our social media presence first on Facebook and then on Twitter before starting to write our first blog posts a year later. It has no evidence of an editorial team, no way of even seeing how article authors are, no avenue for corrections, etc. JoelleJay (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weakest keep I can make arguments both ways for this one - there's just about enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG, but the delete !votes aren't necessarily invalid, either, and you can make a good argument to delete. (I almost wrote neutral, but neutral does mean don't delete, so changed to weakest keep.) SportingFlyer  T · C  12:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The LNR piece has some very marginal coverage -- essentially the only encyclopedic material is


 * @SportingFlyer, would your opinion change with the updated info on the sources? JoelleJay (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, sorry - I think there's just enough there to write a reliably sourced stub article on him. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * From just the one LNR piece? How? We could easily write a reliably sourced stub article using exclusively primary and non-independent sources, so simply having that possible as an end product is certainly not enough to justify an article. What evidence do we have that this player has received sustained in-depth independent secondary coverage such that his article passes NOT? JoelleJay (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I simply don't think it's necessarily correct to discount comorosfootball.com which has several mentions of him. There's no proof there's anything unreliable about the site, and not every part of the world has the same level of quality media coverage as say the United States. The fact he's being independently reported on there isn't nothing. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer, it calls itself a blog, we don't have any info on who any of the writers are or that there are even multiple at all (although we know the site is completely volunteer-run), and there is no published editorial policy; it is just decidedly not RS. We absolutely should not compromise our BLP standards for topics we believe aren't likely to be covered in reliable media. JoelleJay (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely and vehemently disagree about whether it's a reliable source - it only says it started as a blog. We can't expect something from Comoros to have a published editorial policy in the same way as an American paper - otherwise then there wouldn't be anything reliable from Comoros. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because YOU believe Comoros media aren't developed enough to have professional editorial teams doesn't mean we can just paternalistically ignore our policy on verifiability for Comorian newspapers.
 * You vehemently disagree that a BLP should not be sourced to a website that has zero evidence of any professional editing whatsoever, that readily discloses all of its content is from volunteer efforts? I tracked down an interview of the website creator that states he was a math master's student (=not a professional journalist) who manages the site on his own and is seeking volunteers. That's called a blog no matter where you are, and no matter how many amateur volunteers you get to contribute content.
 * But even if comorosfootball.com was reliable, the only real content we can source from it is the churnalized press release linked above, which per WP:RS is not distinct from the press release itself Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release. JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also most of the hits on the site for Ibrahim Madi are actually false positives from "Ibrahim Madihali", a beach soccer player 10 years older. There's only the one post tagged "Ibrahim Madi" on the site. JoelleJay (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I count three mentions, though one is just a mention in a list of players playing abroad. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I'd like more input that discusses the sources rather than just asserting passing or fails GNG. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep first source posted by Ortizesp is acceptable in establishing GNG. Other sources individually fall a little short, but per WP:NBIO, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.  Frank  Anchor  18:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One source is decidedly not acceptable in establishing GNG. And are you really saying the one sentence in La Provence isn't trivial? Because that's the only other reliable possibly-independent reference besides LNR. JoelleJay (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're free to have that opinion, and we clearly differ as to whether it's relevant here. But it's worth noting that your interpretation is not supported by the actual text of the GNG, which phrases this in qualified and descriptive terms: multiple sources are generally expected (emphasis added). -- Visviva (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment. Spartaz, we have one source (LNR) that contains anything more than a trivial mention, and even that is little more than five sentences. Then we have one source that contains a one-sentence passing mention of him in a routine transaction. Those are the only two reliable sources anyone has identified, and this plainly fails all notability criteria. I don't think there's much more we can discuss. JoelleJay (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree with your individual interpretation, I think overall coverage is more than enough to keep already. Ortizesp (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The best evidence of what the guidelines mean is what the guidelines say. Nowhere in JoelleJay's inexplicably vituperative and personal screed above is there any assertion that the available sources fail the actual requirement of WP:SIGCOV that no original research is needed to extract the content. I see no serious argument that any of the discussed sources fail this standard. I am unable to discern any actual policy-based rationale for excluding content simply because it strikes the reviewer as "routine transactional material", an exception that strikes me as so broad and subjective that it could easily be construed to exclude the entirety of sports media. As to comorosfootball.com, I am happy to accept the correction, as I am certainly no expert on the quality of Comorian football media and simply followed up in good faith on another editor's mention. However, I do not think excluding that source changes, or should change, the outcome here. (Having once again said my piece and counted to three, I'm out; in the highly unlikely event that any further input from me is desired, please ping.) -- Visviva (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Inexplicably vituperative"? You have lied about source depth multiple times at multiple AfDs. I can AGF for a couple simple rookie mistakes in assuming a subject's appearing in a WP:HEADLINE means the whole article is on them. But it is not acceptable for an admin to present what appears to be granular, detailed source analysis with word counts and substantive text evaluation like we have at least 189 words (not sure if part of the article is cut off by the paywall), again entirely about the article subject) when the source actually has only 20 words on the subject, and to do this on multiple occasions including after that behavior has been called out. And now, instead of addressing this issue, you are insisting that these sources are still SIGCOV as if no original research is needed to extract the content is the only criterion they have to meet to count towards notability. Never mind that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, that the above sentence (and the comorosfootball.com source) is obviously derived from an FC Martigues Instagram post and so fails WP:RS, that routine sports news and announcements are excluded by NOTNEWS, and that such a facile reading of GNG as "one IR source with five sentences on the topic is sufficient" would permit likely hundreds of millions of biographies. JoelleJay (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.