Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yassin Fortune


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Yassin Fortune

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was prodded with rationale: "Subject is a young footballer who has not yet played in a fully professional league or at senior international level, so fails the sport-specific notability guideline, and about whom there's no evidence of enough non-routine independent significant coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline." PROD removed by creator, with edit summary "May fail WP:NFOOTY but surely does not fail WP:BIO. There has been much media hype circling around this player and has a professional contract with Arsenal for the third year." I'd suggest that the reports of Arsenal reportedly beating Man Utd to signing the player on scholarship terms are just that: media hype, with nowhere near enough solid content to pass WP:BIO. Struway2 (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, No significant coverage, no professional appearances. Just another young talent with a few inches in the sports papers from journalists with nothing better to do. GiantSnowman 08:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Has not played in a fully-professional league and has not played senior international or Olympic football. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant independent coverage. Seven of the sources are largely the same thing - coverage of Arsenal signing Fortune before Man U - which all fall under the definition of routine coverage. Comparing oneself to two notable footballers does not make oneself notable, and while the pages from the French Football Federation can be used to verify facts, they cannot be used to establish notability due to the lack of independence. Subject therefore also falls well short of passing WP:BIO despite the assertion by the article's creator. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Only has routine transfer coverage and fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment To say he fails WP:BIO is a fallacy. He has over 50+ articles written specifically for him (granted that some may be repetitive of his signing) and has a guaranteed professional contract in his third year for Arsenal. So I'll come back when he plays his first couple of seconds in a professional match. Makes sense. So LeBron James was not notable in high school? (Yes, different sport I know) There was over 1000 articles during that time on him. Hype is significant coverage. Yes perhaps a couple of bored reporters, however I am not offering my opinion. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Article essentially claims notability for the individual as a footballer when he hasn't actually played football at a significant level. Fenix down (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - included citations and a google news search indicate the article meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, which trumps the "sport-specific notability guideline".Hmlarson (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 11:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep includes various references from well-known secondary sources thus passing WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online] 18:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: The GNG requires rather more than "various references" from reliable sources. It needs significant coverage from those sources, and not the sort of routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE.  That isn't in evidence.  Nha Trang  Allons! 18:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number   5  7  23:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. -  Yellow Dingo &#160; (talk)  02:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as still not confirmed as independently notable. SwisterTwister   talk  21:20, 27 July 2016 (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.