Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathieu Didion


 * 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 01:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Mathieu Didion

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

Article scrapes by WP:NFOOTY with eight WP:FPL appearances, but WP:GNG is comprehensively failed. Consensus is to delete in this scenario. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The notability guidelines for football have been altereed, and now only apply to managers, so he does not pass that. He clearly does not pass GNG, and so the article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, that change has been reverted, though NFOOTY is likely to change substantially and soon. Not a vote on this, just a note. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Firstly, playing 8 games is not scrapes by WP:NFOOTY. Secondly, recent policy change in RfC (which is still in process of implementation) is irrelevant as it was stated in the sub-proposal that articles would not be grandfathered (and this article was created in 2009). Thirdly, some sources: an article about him,--Ortizesp (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC) mentioned here. --SuperJew (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The first one is an interview, and the second one has no coverage about the subject, only a quote from him (in what seems like a simple match announcement, from the club itself, so neither significant nor independent) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Interviews are valid references, what are you on about. It's by a neutral third party. He clearly passes GNG.
 * Interviews are valid references, but not for establishing notability, as they are not independent from the subject (since the information about the subject mostly comes from his own mouth...). This is very clearly explained at WP:PSTS and also at WP:SIGCOV, which requires sources independent of the subject. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation, interviews aren't denigrated in either WP:PSTS or WP:SIGCOV. The website providing the interview is third party and independent. That is all that is required.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. An interview, which by its very nature is something that is produced in direct collaboration with the subject, is clearly not independent of it, whether it is published in the New York Times or in the Littletown Gazette. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * An off-topic comment on interviews: We in the Wikipedia community often get this rather back-to-front. If a major national newspaper chooses, independently, to interview someone, then it means that person is notable (because someone independent of the subject considers them of interest to the public). But because it's an interview, the subject might tell untruths about themselves, so it's not factually reliable. This is the opposite way round to how notability/reliability of interviews tend to be treated in WP, as in this case. This results from the wording of WP:GNG, which doesn't distinguish between notability and reliability, instead writing "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". This wording was probably deliberate, as it combines the two ideas in one and skips straight to the important decision. Unfortunately, people tend to try to separate them out again, which leads to misunderstandings. To my mind, it's an AND relationship: interviews indicate that the subject is notable, but if there is no reliable information then no matter how notable the subject, no article can be written; in effect, a subject could be extremely notable but nevertheless not suitable for a stand-alone article. Maybe one day WP:GNG will be re-written to make this clear. Elemimele (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I like your point and I would encourage you to push this into a wider conversation, outside the AfD, because this is logical and important. CT55555 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG, and whether it passed a former version of NSPORTS by the thinnest of margins (one which has been explicitly repealed, although still pending implementation) is irrelevant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG, passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If it passes GNG, you must provide sources which show this. Notability requires verifiable evidence, and the sources currently in the article or presented here are clearly not enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the sources listed are clearly enough in my opinion. And the threshold is only one reference as per the latest iteration of rules.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep for now until the dust settles on the sports notability wars. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per GiantSnowman and Random Canadian. GNG cannot be met with an interview and a passing mention. Pilaz (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per GiantSnowman and Random Canadian and Pilaz - lack of RS; fails GNG. Springnuts (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Consensus is clear on this.   scope_creep Talk  14:05, 26 March 2022 (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.