Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Kambuaya


 * 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. Fenix down (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Ricky Kambuaya

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite meeting WP:NFOOTY, I seriously doubt this article matches WP:GNG. I wasn't able to find any SIGCOV when searching the subject's name on Google. MrClog (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is 23 year old and currently playing and last played on 3rd July 2019 in a WP:FPL league.SNGs including WP:FOOTY ,WP:NCRIC ,WP:NBASKETBALL exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG . An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs.Particurly for young players who are currently playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , NSPORTS mentions "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." SNGs exist to give a general idea if a subject is likely to meet the GNG, but meeting an SNG does not mean that an article doesn't need to meet the GNG. --MrClog (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes NFOOTY. For current/young players, leeway is given while they appear in WP:FPL-listed leagues - as Ricky Kambuaya does (PSS Sleman, Liga 1 - per Soccerway). R96Skinner (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It remains unclear where consensus exist to keep articles when they are young and meet NFOOTY but not GNG. NSPORTS (of which NFOOTY is a part) says that all stand-alone articles need to meet the GNG (see my quote above). NSPORTS is a community guideline and represents general community consensus. You put against that, however, 3 AfDs in which people decided to go the other way. All of these cases are local consensus, they represent the views of a small number of AfD participants. When comparing consensus reached regarding a community guideline like NSPORTS with consensus on 3 individual AfDs, it seems clear to me that we should go with the more widespread consensus reached at NSPORTS instead of the local consensus you present. --MrClog (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Those were just three recent examples, from February, March and June of this year - numerous others exist if you check the archives. Even if that is the case, completely and randomly disregarding a long held "local" consensus is pretty disruptive. An individual AfD isn't the correct place to discuss change. R96Skinner (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if that is the case, completely and randomly disregarding a long held "local" consensus is pretty disruptive. Exactly, and that is why it is disruptive to disregard the text of NSPORTS, which was created based on consensus, and which says that stand alone articles should meet the GNG. --MrClog (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Disruption to fix disruption? Strange solution, I must say. As I mentioned, an individual AfD isn't a suitable place to discuss these things. R96Skinner (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete – cannot find WP:SIGCOV to satisfy GNG. I'm coming up with brief mentions, game reports, transfer reports. The best I could find are Sleman (translate) and Kampiun (translate), and I don't think either one counts as in-depth or non-routine. "Passes NFOOTY" is not a policy-based reason to keep, in my opinion, per the NSPORTS language quoted above. "Young player" is also not a policy-based reason to keep, in my opinion, per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. – Levivich 02:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's consensus to allow a player playing in an FPL-listed league to be kept, you know this Levivich. As seen at Articles for deletion/Mats van Kins, Articles for deletion/Sean Karani and Articles for deletion/Danish Irfan Azman - all of which are recorded on your own personal list. R96Skinner (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's local consensus, and consensus can change. – Levivich 13:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a shame you pick and choose which consensus you follow, Levivich. You wonder why fellow editors get frustrated with you, despite your (possibly positive, yet most likely negative) motives. R96Skinner (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I get that you disagree with me on the issue, but I don't get why you're frustrated that there is someone on the internet with a different opinion. My motive is to reduce the number of non-notable footballer BLPs. I think it's a positive motive, but if you want to look at it as a negative motive, like I'm sitting here going, "Muahahahaha! I will reduce the number of non-notable footballer BLPs!", that's fine with me, too; that actually makes me look cooler. – Levivich 18:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia. Disagreement is as common as anything and I'm cool with that, when those involved are helpful. You get hate for your AfD nominations, other editors who nominate don't. Think about it. R96Skinner (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any hate in my AfD nominations.        That was a pretty disappointing comment to read, Skinner. – Levivich  05:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did say "for your", rather than "on your". Anyway, this isn't a suitable place to discuss these things (it's an AfD after all). I've opened a discussion with you via your talk page. R96Skinner (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Voting delete against consensus, because things might change? Isn't that a WP:POINT violation - disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Changes to policy should be discussed in appropriate forums. I've seen others propose topic bans for repeated violation of this behavioural guideline in the past. Nfitz (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some distance. Needs improving, not deleting, especially as he is young and career is ongoing. GiantSnowman 13:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, see    (stopped at the first four, don't understand them, didn't translate them, but other mentions clearly available. Indonesian league is very popular.) SportingFlyer  T · C  16:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Lots of media coverage too, though without a lot of digging difficult to tell how much of it, if any, passes WP:GNG - there's a lot of coverage though, and the examples posted above seem good. The whole point of notability guidelines is so we don't end up wasting time chasing our tails - particularly with foreign language publications. If one wants to avoid WP:BIAS one should support these guidelines. Everyone's time would be better spent improving the article - I'm adding some sources to the article. Nfitz (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have created the following table to assess the sources brought by (using Google Translate). This source I didn't check, because I got a "This site is not safe" warning when opening the link. At this moment, the 1st and 3rd source are also used in the article itself. --MrClog (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC); edited 18:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC) - Update based on new sources by SportingFlyer. --MrClog (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Source assessment


 * I see no reason to believe kampiun.id is an unreliable source. Furthermore, there's tons of mentions of him which is what you would expect for someone with 99 career top division games, including other articles on him specifically  SportingFlyer  T · C  19:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Even assuming all these sources are reliable, I don't see any of them as being in-depth enough to count towards GNG; they're all very brief:
 * Kampiun Apr 2019 is 8 sentences and 1 quote about the player not voting in an election
 * Kampiun May 2018 is 11 sentences with 2 quotes: "Kita banyak kans. Tapi memang belum bisa maksimal. Ini jadi salah satu evaluasi saat nanti pulang ke Mojokerto. Saya yakin kedepan bisa lebih baik lagi" ("We have a lot of chances. But it can't be maximized. This is one of the evaluations when you return to Mojokerto. I am sure that in the future it will be better") and "Kami masih yakin bisa naik. Tinggal sekarang berusaha, kerja keras untuk memenangkan setiap pertandingan" ("We are still confident we can go up. It is only now trying, working hard to win every match").
 * Kampiun Jan 2019 is 13 sentences, the longest I've found, but still not in depth.
 * Bolatimes 2019 is a game report with 2 sentences about the player ("Dua gol PSS Sleman dicetak oleh Sidik Saimima dan Ricky Kambuaya" / "Two PSS Sleman goals were scored by Sidik Saimima and Ricky Kambuaya." and "Umpan dari Derry Rachman disambut tendangan langsung oleh Ricky Kambuaya" / "A pass from Derry Rachman was greeted by a direct kick by Ricky Kambuaya")
 * JournalMojo 2018 has 2 sentences about the player ("Laskar Mojopahit sempat unggul lewat Ricky Kambuaya di menit 24 sebelum Kerbau Sirah mampu membalikkan keadaan lewat ..." / "Laskar Mojopahit was ahead through Ricky Kambuaya in the 24th minute before Buffalo Sirah was able to turn things around ..." and "Jamal juga menyatakan, ia tidak mengetahui pasti pelanggaran yang dilakukan Ricky Kambuaya" / "Jamal also stated, he did not know for sure the violations committed by Ricky Kambuaya")
 * SuperElja 2019 is a 6-sentence transfer report with one quote from the player ("Semoga saya bisa memberikan permainan yang terbaik dan membantu PSS Sleman memenuhi target yang diinginkan manajer tim" / "Hopefully I can give the best game and help Sleman PSS meet the target desired by the team manager")
 * Sleman 2019 is an interview with the player about a particular game, with 11 sentences plus three quotes from the player, like "Pertandingan kemarin itu berjalan sangat seru sekali" ("The match yesterday was very exciting") and "Iya tentunya sangat motivasi sekali untuk pembuktian kepada keluarga saya yang ada di seluruh Papua dan khususnya orang tua saya yang ada di Kota Sorong" ("Yes, of course, it is very motivating to prove to my family throughout Papua and especially my parents who are in Sorong City"). It is not in-depth and gives us almost no information about the player. – Levivich 19:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why many sources that have significant coverage are being tossed out in this exercise, because they are "short" - typically I've seen that point made before with one or two paragraph pieces of a hundred words or so - which is not the case here.
 * If you look at WP:GNG there's no length requirements other than part of a sentence in an article is plainly trivial. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
 * This test is clearly met in many of these articles (and there's more out there). In terms of number of sources, there's no fixed guideline, but GNG says There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. The implication here is one very comprehensive source might be sufficient, but lots of significant sources, with less depth of coverage is also sufficient. Reading WP:GNG instead of trying to establish new policy make it clear that WP:N has been met. If only there was more effort to improve the article, rather than building large tables that ignore existing guidelines! Nfitz (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV does require the coverage to discuss the subject in detail, which these short articles do not. Also, even if the Kampiun.id sources were to be considered SIGCOV, they are still not reliable per the information in the table (the same goes for Superelja.id). Now, about your last sentence ("If only there was more effort to improve the article, rather than building large tables that ignore existing guidelines!") - the reason I'm not improving the article right now is because I believe it is not notable and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. --MrClog (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The coverage easily meets SIGCOV - and there's no indication that none of these sources are reliable. I'm completely perplexed why with such overwhelming evidence here that WP:GNG is met, why you persist in wasting everyone's time with a nomination that should never have happened given the player met WP:ATH all the time. This is why one doesn't nominate articles for players who meet WP:ATH, because invariably they easily meet GNG, unless they only played a single game or something. Nfitz (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV requires there to be enough coverage for us to write an article on him without doing any original research. That's clearly satisfied. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point, this "significant coverage" has lead to a one-sentence stub. Ig being able to write such a stub is enough for something to be SIGCOV, then WP:SIGCOV would contradict itself. It's an example of what is not significant coverage, involving a high school jazz band, would also allow for a one-sentence (even two sentences) stub: Three Blind Mice is a high school jazz band. President Bill Clinton has been a member of the band. The point is that SIGCOV requires us to have enough information to write an actual article, and in this case, I wasn't able to find any information that allows this to be more than just a one-sentence stub. Also, please note that even if the Kampiun.id were SIGCOV, they were not RS per the concerns in the table. --MrClog (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It took me about three minutes to add prose to the article, even with Google translate. You're trying to disqualify a large swath of Indonesian press coverage for being unreliable. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a "large swath of Indonesian press", it's one news site (kampiun.id) and 2 fan blogs that I see as unreliable. --MrClog (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is all besides the point. Whether you agree with it or not, it's consensus, at this current time, at NFOOTY to keep a player playing in an WP:FPL-listed league. An individual AfD isn't the correct place to discuss overall change. R96Skinner (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Levivich Can you clarify why you are arguing that these 13-sentence articles are too short, when at Articles for deletion/Callum McCowatt (2nd nomination) you have sinced argued that similar length 10-14 sentence articles are proof of GNG? Nfitz (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. The 13-sentence article listed above is Kampiun Jan 2019 (translate), 200 words about a rumored transfer. Less than 150 of those words are about the article subject, Kambuaya. In my view, this is not in-depth enough to count as sigcov. Compare that with the sources for Callum McCowatt like (700 words) and  (600 words). Those aren't really the most in-depth articles I've ever seen, but there are like half a dozen articles about McCowatt, each 500 words or more with independent journalistic reporting (e.g., statements of fact in the publication's own voice, quotes from other people about the player), which made me !vote keep. Whereas with Kambuaya, one could almost say there haven't been 500 words written about him yet in total. – Levivich  17:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You explicitly said that  and  met GNG, despite being 200 to 300 word 10-14 sentence articles. They are as detailed than the Indonesian sources you reject here. Don't point to other sources ... I'm asking about these. Why are those two English sources good, when the Indonesian ones aren't? Nfitz (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this the right place for this discussion? Even if Levivich contradicted themselves, that does not mean that their argument here is wrong. This seems like a tu quoque fallacy. As such, I suggest such discussions can be held at the talk page of Levivich. --MrClog (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On one hand you are correct. On the other hand the argument being made that none of the sources for this article can be counted as GNG because they are too short, is completely erroneous and has no basis in policy. I was just astounded to see the contrast from the same editor at the same time! Nfitz (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That a source must be in-depth and not trivial is a key part of SIGCOV/GNG, and is explained at WP:BASIC, and in comparable guidelines like NEVENT (see WP:INDEPTH). – Levivich 17:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I think that User:Levivich is wrong in claims that it must be a certain length. And I think they are wrong in claiming that WP:GNG] hasn't been met with these SIGCOV sources. Nfitz (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if the Kampiun.id sources are SIGCOV, they are not RS per the reasons given in the table. The bolatimes and jurnalmojo sources are RS but clearly not SIGCOV (and I don't think you are arguing that they are). This is all explained in the table. Could you clarify which sources you believe are independent, reliable with SIGCOV by listing at least 2 sources that meet these 3 requirements? Thanks, MrClog (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no indication that Kampiun is not a reliable source. There's no indication any of the information in the article is false - or any of their articles! The facts in their article appear elsewhere, and I haven't seen past objections to using Kampiun in other articles. You have to get into some very precise and rigid definitions of the rules here to eliminate so many references - and precise and rigid rules aren't how things work here. We are close enough - WP:GNG has been met in my opinion. I disagree with you, and I don't believe that we should be nominating articles that easily meet WP:ATH in the first place - which is unnecessarily disruptive and a waste of everyone's time. Nfitz (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to find an editorial policy. Also, there is no "about us" page (only a couple sentences at the bottom of every page), so it is unclear who owns and creates articles. Because of this, it is impossible to ensure that there is at all editorial oversight. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Easily meets WP:GNG and never should have been nominated as by far exceeds WP:ATH . This wasn't borderline. Nfitz (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * With which part of my comment on Kampiun.id's status as an RS did you disagree? Were you able to find any information on the editorial policy/oversight on the site? --MrClog (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The entire thing. Worst of all, that you continue to waste everyone's time by not retracting a nomination for someone who easily meets WP:ATH. There's precedence for examining borderline caess more deeply - this is not one of them. Nfitz (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NATH: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. – Levivich 21:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you mean WP:ATH not WP:NATH. No, but a player on a top team in a major city where football is huge? If there was any doubt, the simplest of Google News searches yielding over 500 recent results (with Ricky showing up everywhere) with 18,000 for a more targeted Google web search would have avoided this WP:BEFORE failure and waste of time. I get the impression that the concern here surrounds other issues - and this is not the right place. Nfitz (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just dug a bit deeper ... I hadn't realised that only his Jogja team was Liga 1 - and they only recently started their season. Okay, I'll retract the Before comments - it's a much narrower pass of WP:ATH than I thought. Nfitz (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He's appeared in another match since this AfD started and still passes WP:GNG, though. Still don't think Kampiun's unreliable. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, he's up to five NFOOTY games now, is he? A clear keep! – Levivich  21:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice sarcasm. He's starting for a team that's only eight games into their season, which averages 20,000 a game, and is well covered in match reports, even if they're not on him specifically. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly still meeets GNG - and ATH. I'm perplexed why this is an issue. I dare say one wouldn't try and AFD a regular player in the top league in the UK or North America! Nfitz (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Clear WP:NFOOTY pass. This is a player who has played (and is still playing) in the top division of a country where football is one of the major sports, a league which is in the top 50 highest attended in the world (possibly in the top 40 now), and playing for a club ranked third the league's attendance list. No-one would consider nominating a footballer playing in an equivalent league in Europe, so deletion of this article would seems to be a case of systematic bias. Number   5  7  18:16, 16 July 2019 (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.