Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarek Aggoun


 * 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. The issue with the keep votes is many focus on items such as his being young, and there will be a great career in the future, they are likely to attract more attention in the future, etc. While used as ratiionales to keep, these rationales are most often used to delete via WP:TOOSOON. On the other side, it is hard to ignore the majority viewpoints on it failing GNG for a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:GNG is the gold standard for inclusion, regardless of what Projects are involved, and the authority from which all other sub-notability guidelines derive their authority. With that in mind, there is a clear consensus to delete. Perhaps next year this young player will attract more coverage, but for today, the consensus is they do not pass the threshold for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Tarek Aggoun

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

Barely passes NFOOTY with a few appearances in the Tunisian League. However, he fails GNG comprehensively. I have found no sources that show significant coverage. The article itself only has one. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Young player who has played two seasons in fully professional football, one in the Czech second division and one in the Tunisian first division. Both leagues are professional by community standards. Will add additional sources and fill the article out a bit more now. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - young player, ongoing career, plenty of professional appearances for NFOOTBALL, also coverage out there towards GNG. GiantSnowman 19:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and the subject is 24 year old with an ongoing career.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Where are the GNG sources? Can someone provide the best three pieces of SIGCOV please. JoelleJay (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes NFOOTBALL with 19 20 fully-professional caps in just the last 2 years! Can User:ArsenalGhanaPartey withdraw this nomination - presumably you weren't aware that his Czech appearances were fully-professional, as that team didn't drop to the 3rd tier until after he played for them. User:JoelleJay is well aware that consensus within the project is that with someone with a score of fully-professional caps, easily meeting NFOOTBALL, we don't have to waste time trying to find foreign-language references to meet GNG, and have debates about whether the sources in the article meet SIGCOV or not. Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean waste time demonstrating a subject actually merits an encyclopedia article? Waste time building a biography of a BLP that doesn't run afoul of WP:NOT? If he's so obviously notable from playing in the Czech second tier or Tunisian first league surely it would be trivial to find Czech and French/Arabic sources. And yet all I'm finding are database entries, rosters, brief mentions in transfers, and discussion of a movie someone with the same name was involved in. The main Czech sports publication iSport.cz merely lists him among Blasko members in a few articles, while there's nothing in Mladá fronta DNES, Lidovky, HN, CTK, Metro, or Blesk; and among all regional newspapers in Czech, which have tons of coverage of Blasko, he is only mentioned in prose (as opposed to rosters/match stats) once, in the Blanensky deník local paper: the leadership of the Prague team could have been two-goal after referee Adamkova ordered a penalty kick after a foul by Aggoun. No hits on major Tunisian news sites (in both French and Arabic) like GNET.tn/Akhbar.tn or Tunis Afrique Presse, or Tunisia Live, or Tunisie Focus, or Nessma TV or Watania or Kalima Tunisie; while others like Essahafa, Al Chourouk, El Khadra, Shems FM, Akher Khabar Online, Jawhara FM, and Radio Sabra FM strictly feature reprints of the same three-sentence announcement about CSHL signing him and a Chadian striker. The only thing beyond that is a namedrop in reports on the match against Tataouine in La Presse de Tunisie and Realites, namedrops in two articles on the state of CSHL in Le Maghreb, and namedrops in lists of player who scored in 2021 in Al-Sabah. JoelleJay (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Davidlofgren1996, @GiantSnowman were you able to find SIGCOV sources? Per above I could not, and as he was released from CSHL there's no indication of an ongoing career either. JoelleJay (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems rather disingenuous given he was released from the team after their most recent game! Nfitz (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No response from User:JoelleJay about their misleading comment after a month! They had a fully-professional start as recently as yesterday, after changing to a team that meets WP:FPL, rather than his previous career. Is that not evidence of not only an ongoing career, but also an advancing career? Can you please strike your comment. Nfitz (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ?? He was released from CSHL, then 2 weeks after I made that comment someone mentioned he'd signed to a new team, which I acknowledged in subsequent comments. I certainly wouldn't call it "advancing" to go from Czech 2nd tier to Tunisian 1st tier and then back to Czech 2nd tier, but regardless, without SIGCOV his status is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG through lack of WP:SIGCOV, which per WP:NSPORTS is required. If those who believe this article should be kept disagree, then they need to present such coverage - although I don't believe such coverage exists, and was unable to find any myself. BilledMammal (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are well aware, than NSPORTS has a lot of caveats about when GNG sources need to be provided. You are also aware that NSPORTS allows for discretion (in both keeping and deleting), and the long-standing consensus in the project is that articles for young players who are active, are created when they are capped, and then kept for some time. You should also be aware that that NSPORTS is neither a pillar nor a policy - but merely a guideline. Presumably you are aware that guidance (and even policy) only documents already-existing community consensus - if consensus differs from guidance, then the guidance should be revised accordingly. Please stop following an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. Nfitz (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What happened to the claim that he definitely obviously has SIGCOV from having appeared in multiple professional games? Now the argument seems to be he's young and active (despite being released by CSHL...), and also NSPORTS is just a guideline that must be WRONG since someone like him is clearly notable regardless of a demonstrable lack of sources. JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that you are aware that is entirely consistent with the long-term consensus and precedent in this project. The bottom line is you trying to change consensus. At some point that becomes a WP:Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Wikipedia, like both the English language, and common law, is not governed by hard-and-fast rules, but by context and precedent. Nfitz (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean like the consensus * There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. from the well-attended 2017 RfC that sports editors just immediately decided to ignore? Or the consensus from the hundreds of deleted articles on athletes meeting NFOOTY but not GNG? Or the consensus referenced by the closers of dozens of narrow AfDs of athletes meeting an NSPORT subguideline but not GNG? Or the consensus that shaped NSPORT's original and ongoing requirement for GNG, as evidenced by explicit statements to that effect in numerous places on the guideline? Keep !votes based on meeting NFOOTY are shorthand for "this subject is expected to have SIGCOV if we look in sources from the right time and in the right languages". This is a rebuttable presumption, and I have rebutted it by searching the archives of 27 of the largest sports news outlets across two countries in three languages and linking those search results for participants to look at for themselves. His coverage remains exclusively non-significant and transactional, and as he was released by his Tunisian team we don't even have a basis for WP:CRYSTAL claims of an "ongoing career". JoelleJay (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Active player so is likely to attract more coverage in the future. Article has already been improved since the deletion nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - see source assessment table, demonstrating that there is no significant coverage despite the article being expanded.


 * BilledMammal (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Is 's source assessment table a correct representation of available coverage to pass/fail WP:SPORTCRIT? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 21:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete makes a completely unsupported argument someone with scores of fully-professional caps, easily meeting NFOOTBALL, we don't have to waste time trying to find foreign-language references to meet GNG, and have debates about whether the sources in the article meet SIGCOV or not that very clearly is not the case. NSPORTS is very clear about needing GNG met. There are indeed community consensuses on certain notability criteria that makes for significant interpretation from the base text (NPOL being an example) but that consensus is not an established fact, despite what nfitz might be indicating. Additionally, 's argument is also not of weight - that someone may well have more sources in the future doesn't mean anything for retention when we don't know when it would be. If he had some huge game on Saturday, then sure we should delay the AfD, but not without any clear timing. Draftify, and then resubmit when and IF it gets more sources. Currently GNG is not met, and it's not so exceptional to warrant an IAR case, though it is closer than the large majority of NSPORTS/but not GNG cases. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My only error is that I meant a score, not scores - the nomination implied he'd only had a few Tunisian WP:FPL games, which is false. This AFD runs completely against the long-established consensus that once a young player gets a fully-professional cap, that it's okay to create an article. There is no need to Wikilawyer by cherry picking a guidance document, and playing up stuff like Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention - but ignoring the rest of the sentence that says "but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Meanwhile others complain about the overwhelming bias towards English-language players - yet few would be suggesting that a young active 4th tier player in England would not be notable - yet here we have people going after players who play in fully-professional East European and African leagues. Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it cherry picking to note the need to also meet GNG? Between the primary document and its explanatory supplements it notes it multiple times. It's hardly buried in the footer somewhere. And I'd be more than happy to find a reason to keep - which reliable source(s) would you say are more than a trivial mention (indeed, significant coverage) but not its primary topic? Please highlight and I'll give a second read immediately. Regarding yet few would be suggesting that a young active 4th tier player in England would not be notable I mean, if they don't have significant coverage in decent sources I would definitely be viewing them as not notable, and so would many others. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if one defines "SIGCOV" as "anything more than two sentences" he still wouldn't meet GNG, as the only pieces that devote three sentences to him are the various translations of the announcement he was transferring to CSHL, which count as one source as they're not independent of each other. Not that it goes beyond routine transactional coverage anyway. Meanwhile others complain about the overwhelming bias towards English-language players - yet few would be suggesting that a young active 4th tier player in England would not be notable - yet here we have people going after players who play in fully-professional East European and African leagues. The only people who would insist such a 4th tier English player was notable in the face of overwhelming lack of coverage would be the users who systematically !vote "keep meets NFOOTY". And I'd like to know which publications you'd expect to see discussing him in depth that aren't among the 27 I already linked. JoelleJay (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - And he's now joined a new club; Viktoria Žižkov in the fully professional Czech second division. Can we please end this AfD on a player with an active career now? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * He didn't receive any coverage when he was in the Czech second division before, why would we presume he will now? JoelleJay (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete The source assessment table is accurate enough: the sources are statistical databases and trivial transfer announcements. Since NFOOTY requires that GNG be met, and the sourcing is insufficient to meet GNG, NFOOTY is not "met" here, contrary to what the keep voters above claimed. Avilich (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your suggestion that WP:GNG must be met. WP:NFOOTY states Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. That "or" in the quote clearly suggests that NFOOTY is an alternative to GNG. This is consistent with WP:N which states that a subject is presumed notable if it meets GNG or an SNG. NemesisAT (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The collapsible FAQ at the top seems very straightforward., among others. As a general note, I fail to see how stats and transfer announcements can be turned into something encyclopedic, regardless of whichever notability guidelines one prefers. Avilich (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Aggoun has two more trivial roster mentions in Czech regional sports media since his transfer (which didn't seem to be covered itself): Prazsky, Jcted. His transfer has not been covered by the Arabic sources I checked: RadioSabraFM, Essahafa, Al Chourouk, Akher Khabar, ShemsFM, JawharaFM, El Khadra. Really not seeing what the holdup is in closing this as delete. JoelleJay (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * NSPORTS has some global rules, prominent amongst which is the requirement to pass GNG, as is also specifically highlighted in FAQ1 Nosebagbear (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Its Unclear and inconsistent which rule to apply. And thus I don't think it's fair to discount the keep voters. NemesisAT (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not unclear. NSPORT has some provisions for leeway in finding coverage of historical and non-anglophone people (as indicated by the "eventually" in the FAQs), but this is not an indefinite hold and can be rebutted by demonstrating the historical or non-anglophone sources expected to provide SIGCOV do not do so. As I have done here, by searching the websites of the top 27 sports news groups in Tunisia and the Czech Republic in English, French, Czech, and Arabic and directly linking what they say about Aggoun. No one has produced any SIGCOV from elsewhere or even contested the thoroughness of my searches. JoelleJay (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Who says this is a delete? Feels like an easy "no consensus" close to me. NemesisAT (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said above, because the NSPORT guideline requires all subjects meet GNG, and while this must be demonstrated with sources "eventually", the only reason the "eventually" provision exists is to allow editors time to search the historic/non-Anglophone sources that would be expected to cover the subject. All of the keep !votes presume these sources exist by making the "meets NFOOTY" argument; that presumption is eliminated if a comprehensive search in the relevant non-Anglophone media shows the coverage does not exist. The two !voters who claimed GNG sources do exist have not provided them and have not contested either my findings or BilledMammal's source assessment table. !Votes based on a presumption that is later determined to be unsupported are discounted in the same way those based on coverage in particular sources are discounted if the sources are later determined to be unreliable. JoelleJay (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As we've gone over before, editors disagree on that interperation of the guidelines, which contradict themselves. The gudieline itself doens't actually require it, only the FAQ which incorrectly summarises the guideline. So the keep votes are still valid, even if you disagree with their reasoning. NemesisAT (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The FAQs were established by NSPORT consensus and would not be included uncontested in the guideline page if they weren't supported. The majority of good-faith editors have no problem understanding the guideline once it's explained to them; that a minority cannot seem to comprehend NSPORT (or just refuse to...) does not make it "contradictory" or make it "open to interpretation". No one seems to have trouble understanding WP:ARTN, on which premise the purpose of NSPORT rests. The guideline is very clear that it is intended to predict GNG coverage of a subject, and that inclusion is only merited if the subject satisfies GNG. An article on a subject in a discipline not covered by an SNG would have to have multiple pieces of SIGCOV in the article to protect it from being nominated for deletion, even if the subject does meet GNG but the sources are inaccessible. The second sentence of NSPORT states that the article on a sub-guideline-meeting subject doesn't have to immediately contain the SIGCOV sourcing that proves the subject meets GNG, it just has to include sourcing that proves it meets the criteria that predict GNG. At no point does it say meeting a sub-guideline is sufficient to merit an article without the subject meeting GNG; that's the whole point of "presuming GNG". JoelleJay (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per, no demonstration that it meets WP:GNG. Per , only one significant source has been provided so far (I would disagree with him and say that five sentences over two paragraphs are significant), but that isn't independent, so it still doesn't contribute to notability. We're at 0 out of 2 of the required sources, and the keep voters have not given me any confidence that any will be found. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: NFOOTBALL states "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." Therefore, it does not override the GNG, and the topic still must meet GNG, which it does not, mainly due to a lack of significant coverage. –– FormalDude   talk  08:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If NFOOTBALL (or NSPORT) doesn't override GNG, User:FormalDude, then why does NSPORT clearly say "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject" - which if you were correct, and it didn't override GNG, not be there - as GNG requires multiple sources, while NSPORT only requires one. Nfitz (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the very next line. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG. I.e, it still needs to meet the GNG. –– FormalDude  talk  09:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I am confused as to the point of WP:NFOOTY. I understand that community consensus appears to be that every article needs to meet GNG, so what is the need for individual community projects having notability guidelines? The reason I am worried is that, should this result go through as a delete, there are quite literally dozens of thousands of articles that could be deleted under the same ruling. There are thousands of articles for footballers who played over 50 years ago, and there will (obviously) be absolutely no significant coverage for any of them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I always just assumed that all football-related articles would come under the general consensus that football in itself is noteworthy, and the determining factor of whether a footballing article should be made is whether the player was deemed to be playing for a noteworthy team or in a noteworthy league.
 * For goodness sake there are articles on this website about rivers that contain no more than a sentence worth of information, there are articles for obscure musicians who were never anywhere near making a hit during their careers. The amount of articles on Olympians who didn't even medal is ridiculous - including people who competed in tournaments almost 100 years ago and are now long-deceased! Why can these articles be classed as 'notable' simply because they fall under a notable category, yet articles for footballers with ongoing careers as full professionals are being questioned?
 * There are a huge number of articles on Wikipedia which, by the logic above, should be removed. This would leave Wikipedia as nothing but a compilation of celebrity biographies, not an encyclopedia, as it is supposed to be. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Davidlofgren1996 If tens of thousands of footballer articles are anticipated to fail GNG, then they should also be taken to AfD. Notability is not inherent and WP:NOTINHERITED by affiliation with notable entities (like playing for a notable team), notability can be predicted through such an affiliation. That's what NSPORT subguidelines do: they do not confer notability, they presume the notability-granting SIGCOV required by GNG exists for subjects meeting their criteria (which are supposed to be calibrated to GNG). This presumption is rebuttable, so if a subject meeting NFOOTY is determined to NOT actually have GNG coverage, they should be deleted.
 * The amount of articles on Olympians who didn't even medal is ridiculous - including people who competed in tournaments almost 100 years ago and are now long-deceased! Why can these articles be classed as 'notable' simply because they fall under a notable category, yet articles for footballers with ongoing careers as full professionals are being questioned?
 * Yes, it is ridiculous, which is why the guideline was changed to not presume notability for non-medalists. Those biographies can and should be deleted, as should those on medallists who didn't receive SIGCOV.
 * There are a huge number of articles on Wikipedia which, by the logic above, should be removed. This would leave Wikipedia as nothing but a compilation of celebrity biographies, not an encyclopedia, as it is supposed to be.
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is WP:NOT to serve as a directory of athletes a la sports-reference.com. Actual directory websites are far, far better resources on current player stats (i.e. the only material provided by contemporary footballer wiki stubs) than Wikipedia is: they have paid employees automatically updating caps/transfers/etc. via advanced software programs, whereas Wikipedia relies on volunteers to manually update these parameters for tens of thousands of articles every day. There is no possibility of Wikipedia ever being up to date or complete under this system, so if the only info on these players can more accurately and easily be found on a dedicated database site there is zero point in wasting editor and reader time cultivating an incomplete, quickly-outdated collection of "biographies" of them. And are you suggesting it would be better to include not only celebrity biographies but biographies of people who aren't celebrities? You do realize every other broad encyclopedia has only a fraction of a percent of its biographies specifically on footballers? JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Would it not be worth setting up a bot that automatically takes all stub articles to AfD, since I'm struggling to see how any stub article can meet GNG, if individual Wiki project guidelines for notability don't matter. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And, to answer your question: yes, I do think it is better to include "non-celebrities". Do you know Yerko Ljubetic? How about Sharon Geary? Igor Tkachenko? Martin Fearon? Roberta Sá? I doubt it. I doubt 99.99% of any given population will. Yet there still exists articles about these people, as they are somewhat notable in their own rights. There is over 2 million stub articles on Wikipedia, and if we are to be hard-line about GNG, you're probably looking at getting rid of well over half of those. Wikiprojects help to determine whether someone is notable within their field, and there is a consensus at WP:NFOOTY that players with ongoing careers, especially ones who have made a significant number of appearances in fully professional football (hence this article's entire existence) will be given the benefit of the doubt in terms of AfDs. If you disagree with this, then, as I've suggested, I think it's about time we started tagging stub articles - we've got a lot of work to do! Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is over 2 million stub articles on Wikipedia, and if we are to be hard-line about GNG, you're probably looking at getting rid of well over half of those. If over half of stub articles end up failing to meet notability guidelines, then yes those should also be deleted. No one is suggesting they shouldn't be. The AfD load does need to be manageable however, so a bot would quickly overwhelm the system.
 * Many, many editors disagree that the inclusion criteria developed by the football project accurately predict GNG, which is why so many athletes meeting NFOOTY are deleted... What members of individual sports projects have decided is "notable" does not supersede the actual notability guideline, which is NSPORT, and since that requires GNG all its subjects must meet it and the article must eventually include sources directly demonstrating this. JoelleJay (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is over 2 million stub articles on Wikipedia, and if we are to be hard-line about GNG, you're probably looking at getting rid of well over half of those. Haha god forbid we ever try to clean up Wikipedia and improve it! -Indy beetle (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t know about you guys, but I think deleting 1/3 of the articles on the entire website would not improve it. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if 1/3 of our articles are nonnotable stubs that’s a problem. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. NSPORTS is very clear on that all subjects should pass GNG, there are no exceptions for football players. Claims that he will "attract more coverage in the future" is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Alvaldi (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How, User:Alvaldi is the single claim above, over a month ago, that "attract more coverage in the future" CRYSTALBALL given that since then, he is no longer without a club, has been signed, and has made a fully-professional cap - generating more (routine) coverage? Can you expand on that? Nfitz (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * He failed GNG a month ago so that any predictions that he will receive enough significant coverage in the future to pass GNG, due to still playing, are just that, predictions. As far as I know, he still hasn't received enough significant coverage to pass GNG. Making a fully-professional cap is irrelevant as NSPORTS states that all sport subjects must meet GNG, regardless of professional appearances. Look, GNG is not an impossible hurdle to overcome, three significant sources usually due the trick but in theory two could be enough. If anybody finds multiple significant sources on the subject, I am more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Easily meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to fail GNG. "Young player" who can "attract more coverage in the future" is CRYSTAL, and "we don't need to look for sources" is just stupid and totally counter to everything the encyclopedia is built off of. Will happily change my vote if SIGCOV in independent RS is provided. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears that consensus has shifted to deleting this article. This AfD has been dragged on for almost a month now, I say that an admin closes this soon. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I already posted a closure request here a couple days ago. Maybe that's what caused the recent influx of delete votes. Avilich (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: Especially following the massive RfC deprecating participation standards in the absence of significant coverage, a failure of the GNG is a done deal.   Ravenswing     05:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in WP:N that depreciates WP:NFOOTBALL, User:Ravenswing. Are you claiming he doesn't meet NFOOTBALL by playing "in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues"? Looks to me, that he not only meets by having one, he far exceed by having dozens! Nfitz (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice try, Nfitz, but seeing that you're a participant in the footy's project's discussion of where to go from here, are you seriously going to claim that you're unaware of the RfC?   Ravenswing     23:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion - but the closure isn't complete, and the changes to NSPORT were reverted. There's no clear consensus, that's for sure. Nfitz (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, I don't have an opinion on whether to keep or not, but I must ask why in the world has it been over one month since the last relist? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment. This needs to be closed. There is by now a clean consensus to delete (10 to 6); no one disputed the findings of my first search of 27 sports news sites across 4 languages, nor the second search in Czech and Tunisian/Arabic media following his acquisition by another second-tier Czech team; no one has contested BilledMammal's assessment table; and a proposal to require sports biographies feature at least one piece of SIGCOV from the start has since passed with very strong consensus. Whether or not the last bit applies to him is ultimately irrelevant, as the subject failed the status quo ante NSPORT notability requirements for meriting an article anyway, and not a single keep !voter has even argued GNG coverage currently exists. JoelleJay (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: What the hell? Every single vote since the previous relist has advocated deletion, and with extensively phrased rationales, rather than with knee-jerk "young player, ongoing career" or "for the reasons of those who want to keep this article" comments. (I'm pretty certain, for instance, that not a single notability criterion on Wikipedia sets forth "ongoing career" or the youth of the subject as valid indicators of presumptive notability.)  This should never have been relisted again.   Ravenswing      04:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - article is on an internet-era footballer and clearly fails WP:GNG per source analysis from User:BilledMammal. Ample time has been given to provide suitable sources but not one has come forward. This should be deleted but with no prejudice against being recreated should Aggoun meet GNG at some point in the future. As per WT:NFOOTY, some of us will be discussing WP:FPL and I think that, based on this discussion, it's worth casting doubts on whether playing in Czech National Football League and Tunisian Ligue Professionnelle 1 make you automatically notable. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete If significant coverage can't be shown for the subject to meet WP:GNG, then any presumed notability through the SNG is overturned due to notability being challenged through this AfD. That's how the sports SNGs work. Presumed notability only lasts until that notability is challenged and, at that point, significant coverage from reliable sources must be shown. The latter hasn't happened. Since the player is still active, they may become properly notable in the future. But they don't meet that bar right now. Silver  seren C 18:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete partly per the walls of text above proving beyond doubt that, as usual, an SNG is subjugated to GNG (as if it should be in doubt). Likewise, it fails WP:ANYBIO, as the available coverage is insufficient to indicate passing any of those three criteria. If, of course, his career continues on the trajectory we all doubtless wish for him, then he probably will do in the future. But NOTCRYSTAL, on that one.  SN54129  20:10, 13 March 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.