Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nile Walwyn


 * 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. Even ignoring the "delete" !vote by a sock, I find the argument that the sources listed do not meet the required depth most compelling. Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Nile Walwyn

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Canada,  and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, in my WP:BEFORE search, I noticed that there are mentions of this figure, but not in any way unfortunately that would constitute sigcov. This mention for instance comes from espn, but does not appear to offer us anything to work with? If we can't find more or better sources, then I would need to stay with delete. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 03:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Found sources in Icelandic media such as 1, 2, 3, 4 and New Zealnd sources such as 5, 6. If this survives deletion, I'll try to spruce up the article with these and other sources (Edit: I've now since updated the article from this to its current form. RedPatch (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per RedPatch, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 19:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @GiantSnowman, can you point to which two sources demonstrate GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The NZ Herald is the best, when combined with the other sources there's enough to satisfy me. GiantSnowman 18:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @GiantSnowman that's not an NZ Herald piece, it's from Hawke's Bay Today which is a much smaller paper in the NZME network that gets hosted on NZ Herald (presumably due to its circulation being too low to maintain its own website). The author is specifically dedicated to local sports. And anyway GNG requires multiple SIGCOV articles. JoelleJay (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per above. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG. The Icelandic sources are far too brief to provide sigcov. They are also routine signing/match coverage and the MBL source cites his club's Facebook page. Sporty.nz is a club website and something written by his club Hawke's Bay United. "For all involved in Hawkes Bay United, that is very much what we want to see from our new number 19". NZ Herald is the only half decent source provided which isn't enough to pass GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the news station citing the club's Facebook page has anything to do with anything. They're citing the club. Everything gets written about something someone said. The team made an announcement through one of their official channels and this media source is reporting it. When team's make announcements they post it on their social media so people can find out about it. So they're reporting what the team revealed. That comment just sounds like trying to discredit something that is entirely reasonable. It's not like I posted a link to the club's facebook page claiming that was a GNG news source. It's a third party news report. When PSG signed Messi, they also announced it on Twitter, and Instagram, and Facebook. Same as every club in the world making any signing/injury announcement/etc. RedPatch (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And such transactional announcements are rightfully excluded from contributing to GNG for being routine and non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You can make an argument for being routine, but it is clearly not non-independent, given its a third party source, which was my point. How else can a third party organization report on something (in any field of life, not just sport), if it hasn't happened yet. How can the third party report a signing if there is no signing. RedPatch (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If the article doesn't contain any info beyond that included in the PR package the club provides media, it is not intellectually independent. JoelleJay (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. 1 is a routine transactional announcement, ❌. 2 is another routine transactional announcement by the same outlet as 1, ❌. 3 is yet more routine transactional news by #1, ❌. 4 is 2 sentences of transactional news regurgitated from the ÍR facebook page, not secondary independent analysis, ❌. 5 is a release from his own club, ❌. 6 is an ok piece in hyper-local news (Hawke's Bay Today): not enough on its own, especially given how local it is. JoelleJay (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Expanded the article. Looking at WP:SPORTCRIT which is the determining criteria, it says Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. All participants have accepted that it does have at least one (there has been debate as to whether the other sources are sufficient addition "significant" for 2-5+ significant sources, but all agree there is at least one. SPORTSCRIT also says Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability & Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. There are these types of sources which have been used to support in addition to the other main "significant ones", in addition to other secondary sources as well. Also the final criteria is Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. The local non-primary sources are independent and go beyond routine match coverage (beyond a couple of college games, there is nothing about individual matches). When there is this combination of significant, medium, and smaller coverage to make an adequate length and solidly detailed article (with sources not too difficult to find), I feel its a fairly clear article that qualifies for inclusion. I have voted delete (and even nominated) on other football articles in AfD, where sourcing was far less available (and nearly non-existent). So I'm not just voting keep just because it's a football article. RedPatch (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially considering a WP:HEY has been done on the article. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting that everyone (or in fact any of the delete !voters) agrees there's a SIGCOV source? I certainly don't think a hyper-local article is sufficient to meet SPORTBASIC (the local sources requirement is a caution that independence isn't a guarantee with those outlets, they need to be more strenuously vetted). And there definitely isn't consensus that any of the other sources contribute anything to notability, so it's not possible to just combine them and meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In your post, you said the "NZ Herald" one was decent, but not enough on its own and you want more beyond that one. You then asked GiantSnowman for what was the second source that shows notability, implying that NZ Herald was a source that implies notability. Dougal also said similar when referring to the NZHrald one. That's the way I took those comments as the all accepted there was "one". Given that both delete votes said that source was good and all the keep votes agreed with the six I posted, that's how I took that as everyone accepted that "one". Sorry if that's not what you meant, it was the way I interpreted it based on the previous comments - that it was acceptable as one but wanted more in addition. RedPatch (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I would characterize my and @Dougal18's (correct me if I'm wrong) opinion of the Hawke's Bay Today source as somewhat less than GNG-compliant despite having much more coverage than the other sources. I asked GS what the second ref was because I already knew we disagreed on the status of the first and since multiple pieces of SIGCOV are required it's important to specify which of the sources are being asserted for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also there are 4 delete !votes, including the nom. JoelleJay (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant the 2 votes who posted after the additional sources were posted, since the ones before hadn't seen them and haven't returned to comment on them. RedPatch (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I'd say we should keep this partially per WP:BIAS (St. Kitts and the Nevis barely has anybody with articles), partially as a pass of NBASIC (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability), and because as shown by the expansion, we clearly have enough material to write a biography on this player. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. The Icelandic sources are absolutely not SIGCOV, not even close, just routine transfer stories. The Hawkes Bay United source is a WP:PRIMARY source. The Hawkes Bay Today is decent but GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvaldi (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to mention there is a lack of SUSTAINED coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article has been siginifcnrly expanded with the new sources (WP:HEY). WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - I looked at the HEY, and checked the article revisions, but it's still woefully short of passing WP:GNG. The November 2016 HBT source is by far the best (and only thing that counts toward SIGCOV). The rest are not independent of the subject, or are routine/trivial coverage. It's interesting that his fellow trialist at 2nd-tier ÍR, Robbie Crawford (footballer, born 1993), that actually had a little more coverage in the Icelandic source seems to also come up short on the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2023 (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.