Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumar Almadjed


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Sumar Almadjed

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

Since WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, GNG must be met. This doesn't come close. Was draftified for improvement, but returned without any improvement.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The best I found was this, mostly an interview but has some prose in it. The rest I found were interviews and routine stuff. Happy to reconsider if someone has better luck in finding something significant. Alvaldi (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I found 10+ articles about him from hd.se here, as well as, ,, , , , , , and , among many many more Swedish sources. Clearly significant figure in Swedish league football with ongoing career in fully pro Allsvenskan, which receives lots of media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. As search in Mediearkivet, the dominating Swedish newspaper archive from the last decades, gives 1128 hits when searching for his name. Most of these are trivial mentions from match reports, but there seems to be plenty of real articles as well, not just interviews. I'll see if I can find the time to take a proper look; it's a time-consuming effort due to the number of articles. /Julle (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 19:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG as per significant sources above.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The amount of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV is sufficient to meet WP:GNG WP:NOTABILITY requirements for inclusion under WP:NATHLETE. The nature of coverage passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold, so the case cannot be made that coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE, since it is significant and demonstrates WP:IMPACT, therefore justifying a standalone article per WP:NATHLETE. I also find that available sources are reliable and independent, meeting notability requirements for athletes. Since the subject is notable, WP:NOTABILITY criteria per WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE are met. Additionally, there is plenty of SIGCOV to demonstrate the subject’s notability in a manner that satisfies the relevant guidelines for the subject. I would be more likely to push for deletion if the subject weren’t notable or if coverage was of a WP:ROUTINE/WP:TRIVIAL nature failing to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:NATHLETE, but this simply isn’t the case because reliable independent sources effectively establish the subject’s WP:NOTABILITY. The case for deletion would be stronger if notability and significant coverage requirements weren’t satisfied. However, since they are satisfied, the stronger case to be made here is that for inclusion. For these reasons, keeping the article is the appropriate course of action. Deletion rationales pointing to a lack of RS SIGCOV don’t have much weight in this case, since the subject does have sufficient coverage of a significant nature by independent WP:RS. I will also point out that the subject meets WP:GNG requirements per WP:NATHLETE, as demonstrated by the available reliable sources which establish WP:NOTABILITY. Since all of these conditions are met, the article should be kept. Deletion would be more appropriate for an article on a subject without demonstrable notability via lack of adequate WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Due to this subject’s notability, however, the article should not be considered eligible for deletion. Also, the nature of coverage passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold, so the case cannot be made that coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE, since it is significant and demonstrates WP:IMPACT (i.e. this justifies a standalone article). I also find that available sources are reliable and independent, removing any concerns otherwise. Since the subject is notable, WP:NOTABILITY criteria per WP:GNG are met. Additionally, the amount of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV also meets WP:GNG WP:NOTABILITY requirements and satisfies WP:NATHLETE.  The nature of coverage also passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold as well, so the case cannot be made that coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE, since it is significant and demonstrates that the subject is notable, therefore justifying a standalone article per WP:NATHLETE. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)  WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What the actual fuck. JoelleJay (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. The sources linked above (that aren't premium content) are interviews, and the meager independent commentary within them is mostly just routine transfer news. What do the paywalled articles say? JoelleJay (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep there is enough non-interview prose in the source provided by Alvaldi and some of the ones provided Das osmnezz to pass WP:GNG.  Frank  Anchor  14:01, 4 April 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.