Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nana Boakye-Yiadom (footballer)


 * 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Nana Boakye-Yiadom (footballer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Despite making three appearances in an WP:FPL league. Most of his sources seem like WP:ROUTINE sources and possibly doesn't pass WP:GNG with that. HawkAussie (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Passing WP:NFOOTBALL only means that the subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline, not that he does. Most of the sources are game recaps, database listings or articles on teams sites that are not independent of the subject. This is probably the best source in the article and this is the best I found in a Google search. I am more than happy to change my vote if someone has a better luck than me finding sources. Alvaldi (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No clear consensus as yet and to my mind a lot more needed from the keep voters. Yes the article has a lot of sources in it but which ones help satisfy gng? What I am seeing is a lot of primary sources, routine match reporting which doesn't discuss the individual in detail and stat sites. Not really seeing where the significant coverage is. Also, the argument that he should be kept because he scrapes over the NFOOTBALL threshold and has an ongoing career is laughable as he is currently competing for Barking in the 8th tier, four tiers below the level that is considered fully pro and has been in non league football for years.
 * Keep - player actually has 4 apps for a professional club, meeting NFOOTBALL by some way - and has ongoing career, albeit at a lower level. Article needs improving, not deleting. WP:BEFORE clearly not complied with, again. GiantSnowman 10:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There is enough for me in the article say see he gets a pass on GNG, and he just qualifies under NFOOTY in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Weirdly, I did actually see him play his only league game for Barnsley. Per GiantSnowman and Govvy, he passes NFOOTY and, though a little marginal, there are probably just enough sources out there for a GNG pass. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * polite reminder that your job when reviewing/closing an AFD is to objectively assess the consensus in the discussion, not impose your own opinion. GiantSnowman 08:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep passes GNG...--Ortizesp (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - hasn't played a game of professional football for 7 years and no significant coverage has been demonstrated. I tried a few search engines but could only get hits about the much more famous namesake, after excluding match reports, transfer announcements and database profile pages in Soccerway etc. This might be significant coverage in the Sheffield Star but I can't access it. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would consider these significant coverage, and they are generally cited on the page: 1, 2, 3 - and no, I don't think transfer coverage highlighting the players career as WP:ROUTINE.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We would generally discount the Barnsley FC source due to not truly being an independent source, even though the coverage is good. The other two are okay-ish coverage-wise, not clear cut GNG. There's clearly enough consensus for now for the article to be kept, anyway, but I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up back at AfD in a few years if his career doesn't head back to NFOOTBALL levels anyway. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: per nom, no sigcov foundable, several years w/o a play, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources proffered above are routine and not SIGCOV (or are not independent). 5 sentences relating to a transfer is decidedly not in depth, and even if the Barking article wasn't hyperlocal transfer coverage it's strictly a proseified list of his former clubs and injury reports -- identical information to that in stats databases, which do not contribute to SIGCOV. And Barnsley FC is very obviously not an acceptable source for establishing notability. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There's enough of a WP:NFOOTY pass and enough written about him to scrape the article over the WP:GNG line, even if a couple better sources are needed in the article as it is. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep We establish clear black lines like WP:NFOOTBALL to avoid spending month-long debates like this. It's a clear pass, with a year and 4 appearances in a fully-professional squad, and there's been continuing media coverage of this player in subsequent years that's borderline GNG. There's more than enough material available on-line to flesh out the article, and provide more references. I've improved and added additional references. We'd also be better served if during this month-long debate, that there was more energy spend improving the article, rather than debating it! Nfitz (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nfitz I'm still not seeing any SIGCOV? Routine play-by-play match coverage and transfer announcements are not nearly in-depth enough for notability even if the subject is prominently mentioned, and combining those sources doesn't magically make such material encyclopedic. Per NSPORT, NFOOTY does not supersede GNG so having played 4 games doesn't mean he deserves a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Routine play-by-play match coverage isn't significant, but printed newspaper articles about things like hat-tricks are. Corporate transfer announcements aren't significant, but national media coverage of transfers is. Also note, that as per WP:N, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if" it either meets GNG and SNG. By meeting WP:NSPORT, SNG is met, and GNG is indeed trumped. Now you would be correct, that if NSPORT was met, and there weren't actual sources to write anything, then the article should be deleted, but I'm finding more than enough coverage of this person over the last 7-8 years to flesh out an article. Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That article is still a routine play-by-play match report; his being in the headline is immaterial to the lack of in-depth coverage of him overall, and it's also irrelevant that it appears in a printed newspaper article (especially since it's a special-interest newspaper devoted specifically to all levels of UK non-league football; it might be different if it was a headline in The Times in a non-sports section). And being "national" doesn't magically make trivial mentions somehow SIGCOV. Of course you can find abundant coverage of the plays this or any other player, league or non-league, made throughout his career; but per NOTNEWS that material is not encyclopedic unless it garnered unusually substantial in-depth attention in multiple IRS. WP:N is referencing the GNG-independent SNGs with that sentence (NPROF, GEOLAND, the extra requirements for NPOL); NSPORT is explicitly subordinate to GNG, per the very first sentence (emphasis mine): This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The FAQs right at the top of the page even say The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline and eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You quoted the first sentence not the second, which says "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." It says GNG or SNG ... not GNG and SNG. I quickly found dozens of sources. I only opened a couple of them. There's adequate sources to write an article.  This wikilawyering over borderline cases needs to stop - it's a waste of everyone's time. I expect given sufficient time, and infinite resources, GNG sources would be found. Nfitz (talk)


 * 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.