Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Tié (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Neither side prevails whether assessing on numbers or on strength/quality of argument. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Nicolas Tié
AfDs for this article:


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

Player still fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Made no appearances during the 2020 Olympics, has not made his debut for Vitoria and has no significant coverage. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - he was determined to be notable and meet GNG at the last AFD. GiantSnowman 14:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This was under the assumption that he would actually play at the Olympics, which he did not. If we are setting the benchmark for notability at "being involved in an international squad", then there are a lot of AfDs that need to be reviewed and articles that need reinstating. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, since then, WP:NOLYMPICS has been changed, so people are no longer assumed notable for just competing at an Olympics (only if they win a medal). Although as he didn't even compete, this shouldn't factor into it. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - this looks like it would contribute to GNG somewhat. Has anyone got anything else? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This was a unanimous keep in the AFD a few months ago. User:Davidlofgren1996 in their comment above misrepresents the debate by claiming that "he would actually play at the Olympics", however a read of the AFD makes it clear that it wasn't his potential Olympic appearance, but that GNG was met. The article is well sourced, and coverage continues in the media such as the good reference Spiderone has above. There's also further (brief) coverage in the last few weeks of his upcoming transfer to FC St. Gallen. Nfitz (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Okay, if the community agrees that this article genuinely passes GNG, then fine. I just personally thought the benchmark was much higher for GNG than this. The source provided by Spiderone was already in the article, so I have seen it already, but it is the only real article specifically about Tié. All the rest are either mentions or transfer speculation/gossip/announcements. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I stand by my earlier comment that the !keep voters were mostly voting with the impression that he would pass WP:NOLYMPICS, with comments being "seems very close to passing GNG, and at any rate should not be deleted until after the Olympics at the soonest", "and further the Olympics starts July 23rd that is Just 6 days from now" and "and going to the Olympics". I am aware some of these voters said he met GNG, but the reason I've started this debate is because I do not believe that one independent source is enough for sigcov. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep', meets GNG. Also very likely to meet NFOOTY as he is on the roster of a top flight team.-- Mvqr (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete the sourcing is not enough to pass GNG. The past discussion was a crystal one that predicted an Olympics appearance which did not materialize. This is why we have the rules against crystal predictions of the future in the first place. We need to build articles on the reality of the present not on predictions of the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, the sourcing in this article is both numerous and covers several different events, enough to easily make him pass WP:GNG, regardless of his NFOOTY fail. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep sourcing in the article appears to be sufficient for passing WP:GNG, even if he did not compete at the olympics. NemesisAT (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage, per the following source assessment table:

BilledMammal (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Is ’s source assessment table accurate? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Good enough sourcing and coverage is just enough to meet GNG. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article has been refbombed with routine transaction coverage, but still does not have a single piece of SIGCOV. Definitely does not meet GNG. I had actually completed my own source assess table before seeing BilledMammal had already made one; since mine was almost identical to theirs I can say I agree fully with their assessment. JoelleJay (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's hardly ref-bombing. Also the sum total of some of the references provided meet WP:SIGCOV which notes that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but does not need to be the main topic of the article. You imply that what many see as significant coverage, you see at WP:ROUTINE, but a reading of ROUTINE makes it clear that sports scores are routine. Sure, there's routine coverage of the transfer of notable players (as in articles, rather than just a line in a table) - but that's no surprise. Also of no surprise, is that there's other coverage not referenced in the article (wouldn't want to REFBOMB it), such as this that post-dates the last (snow keep) AFD. Nfitz (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That source is already in the assessment table. If the sum total of transaction coverage was accepted as equivalent to SIGCOV, every football player deleted in all the previous AfDs would have been kept. The ONLY coverage of Tié is transactional; there is no assessment of his skills, no detailed analysis of his performance over time. Guimaraes Digital reports on local youth chess tournaments, their spending 5 sentences on Tié transferring to St Gallen is hardly indicative of notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The reporting of local chess tournaments is most certainly not a criteria to invalidate a source. See this example from the New York Times]. Nfitz (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It sure is when the same amount of un-bylined coverage is given to a youth district chess tournament as to a transaction announcement! JoelleJay (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why must you argue about absolutely everything, on every discussion you are involved in, always needing to get the last word? You act like there are rules, and everything is black and white, rather than shades of grey. Even in the real world, laws can only be ruled on, considering precedent. Why ignore precedents that already exist? This isn't the forum for that. Nfitz (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, the "Significant coverage?" column in the table is subjective despite being presented as some kind of definitive indisputable assessment, and my own judgement would be that at least one of the sources (La Nouvelle République) does satisfy SIGCOV and therefore a GNG pass. Crowsus (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would note that multiple sources are required for WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 15:27, 13 February 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.