Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kekuta Manneh


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Kekuta Manneh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Gambian League is not listed at WP:FPL. However, in the absence of reliable sources confirming the the league as fully pro, we cannot assume that it is. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We cannot assume it isn't either since you're speaking from absence of any information. I started the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues when I removed the PROD and it has not been followed-up. We must find some proof that it is or isn't a fully professional league before deciding whether to remove players from the league. Not to do so is dishonest.
 * Worst case scenario, if it is decided to delete, I would request that it be moved under my user space in case the player is capped for the Whitecaps, as is expected. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/another-win-for-real-de-banjul gri3720 (talk) 4 February 2013
 * This article indicates that Gambian first division clubs participate in the African Champions League which would be a solid indicator to me that it is likely fully-professional.
 * Participation in the CAF Champions League indicates nothing more than that the Gambian FA is a member of the CAF. Two leagues confirmed as not fully pro at WP:FPL had entrants in the 2012 Champions League. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The WP:BURDEN is on those wanting to keep the article to prove notability. GiantSnowman 11:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not delete, but move to my user space if it fails.
 * Also burden is not about whether keeping or deleting an article, it's about references. Again, misusing policy is not appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's by no means abuse of policy. It may not be the letter of what is written in WP:BURDEN, but it is common sense that something as important to the encyclopedia as a claim to notability be supported by reliable sources. This is backed up by other policies as well. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Given that notability in the general is not met, notability is dependent on the subject having played in a fully pro league. In the absence of verifiable evidence that the Gambian league is fully pro, the requirements for notability are not met, ergo the article should be deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not worth arguing over. BURDEN doesn't comply with this situation though, COMMONSENSE may. However, it seems like pure laziness to say "it's not on some list" and not try to prove that it should or shouldn't be on the list. Again, not contesting that the nation's first division isn't on the list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have scoured search engines for hours trying to find any information at all about wages and standard of living for players in the Gambian league and have been able to find almost nothing. However, on the website of Real de Banjul F.C., they provide an outline of their philosophy on the club as a business and their view of their players as professionals.  Here it is if it will be of any use in the discussion on the topic. http://realdebanjul.gm/club-profile
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Whether a league is on a Wikipedia-made list, or if a player has played 1 match or not if not the biggest deal. What's worth arguing about, is if this player passes the general notability guideline, and in my eyes the citations in the article from The Point and Soccer America is "significant coverage". Mentoz86 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree that Manneh meets GNG, which was accepted the first time this article was proposed for deletion. That point makes the debate of whether the Gambian first division is fully professional irrelevant, although worth determining for future pages. gri3720 (talk) 9 February 2013
 * Keep - clearly shown to meet the general notability guideline. C 679 12:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. There are clear reliable, third party sources. Whether these are substantial enough is questionable, but for a young player seems sufficient, at 18, how many interviews and articles would one expect. The discussion about whether the Gambian league is fully professional or not seems to me to be yet more weight to the arguemtn that the awful FPL essay at WP:FOOTY should be binned as fundamentally divisive and subjective whilst simultaneously being wholly irrelevant as GNG and NFOOTY are actual guidelines. Fenix down (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:GNG --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2013 (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.