Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaby Jallo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 analysis of sources indicates that no given source provides significant coverage as required for notability, and this is not substantially refuted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaby Jallo[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Gaby Jallo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your standards seem different from other Wikipedians. Please also make note of this. More AfDs is usually not better. gidonb (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The standards are clear. Simione001 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also below. gidonb (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what i'm supposed to be seeing... Simione001 (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's has been proven there are multiple online sources, although weak in nature, they do build a picture when combined. Govvy (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I haven't seen anyway. The picture is of poor quality. Simione001 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1 has two sentences of primary coverage about how Jallo "changed his mind" about "scolding" a referee Red XN. 2 is two sentences on the same event plus video and interview Red XN. 3, 5, 7, 9 are pure routine transactional coverage Red XN. 4 is pure routine transfer coverage + quotes from his coach and him Red XN. 6 is almost entirely quotes from Jallo Red XN. 8 has one sentence of injury updates on him Red XN. 10 is a routine, trivial suspension announcement Red XN. 11 is a pseudonymously-published transactional blurb that has all of this to say about Jallo: Due to injuries, La'Vere Corbin-Ong and Joey Groenbast are currently unavailable at Go Ahead, which means the club is urgently looking for a new left back. This could possibly be Gaby Jallo. The former player of FC Twente, Heracles Almelo, Willem II and FC Emmen is currently on trial in Deventer. The defender is transfer-free. Red XN. Literally nothing approaching SIGCOV, which is required for sports bios.
JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the sources in the article:
1 has a couple quotes from him Red XN. 2 is a routine transactional announcement with zero secondary analysis Red XN. 3 is a routine update with all of this to say about Jallo: Defender Jallo of FC Emmen is a doubt for the away match against the number 2 of the League tonight. The left back was taken off early in the 4-2 win against Jong Ajax on Friday evening and subsequently did not train with the group. Red XN 4 is his name in a list Red XN. 5 = 6 from above. 6 is the closest to SIGCOV, but is still mostly the author repeating what Jallo says in the interview, similar to #5 (from the same outlet, so not separate sources anyway). 7 = 1 from above. 8 is a passing routine injury report Red XN. 9 is routine transactional reporting (contract and injury update) + quotes Red XN.
WP:HEY doesn't count if the expansion is from trivial and routine mentions. The subject still needs to actually meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. There are no guidelines saying an athlete is notable simply for appearing in a certain number of matches. Concur with the source analysis provided by JoelleJay. User:Let'srun 17:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Upon evaluating the sources presented, it is clear that the subject, Jallo, does not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). The sources provided fail to offer significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) and do not establish the subject's notability independently (WP:INDY). The majority of the sources are routine coverage of sports transactions, which do not contribute to notability as per WP:ROUTINE. The lack of in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources (WP:SECONDARY) that are independent of the subject further undermines the case for notability.
As @JoelleJay mentioned, I don't think the mere number of appearances in professional games is not a standalone criterion for notability under Wikipedia's notability guidelines for sports figures WP:NSPORTS. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that goes beyond mere statistics and databases. The current sources do not provide the substantive and detailed coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG.
In accordance with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability WP:V and the avoidance of original research WP:NOR, an article must demonstrate notability and information based on reliable, published sources. The references cited for Jallo do not meet these standards. Therefore, I think this article should be deleted as it stands – with possibility of re-creation should future coverage or WP:RS establish the subject's notability unequivocally. PD Slessor (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant coverage of this person, as evidenced. GiantSnowman 19:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SIGCOV as identified by GiantSnowman, which is enough to pass GNG. Per WP:NBIO, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. There is enough non-trivial coverage here to put together a GNG pass. Frank Anchor 20:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources must also be secondary and pass NOTNEWS. Routine coverage, even when in-depth, does not meet those standards. JoelleJay (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, why do you claim that this source has only two sentences of coverage and that this coverage is primary? gidonb (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A striking match during the match between AZ and Willem II on Saturday evening. Willem II player Gaby Jallo wanted to scold the linesman, but changed his mind. That had everything to do with the week that was dominated by the tragic death of linesman Richard Nieuwenhuizen.
Jallo did not agree with a decision by the linesman and wanted to make this known to him. Until he changed his mind and wanted to make a statement. "I wanted to show my emotion, but I held back. Of course that is difficult, but sometimes you have to use your mind. A linesman does not simply give the ball to an opponent through a protest."
Professional football observed the death of linesman Richard Nieuwenhuizen by observing a minute's silence before the start of all matches. Nieuwenhuizen died when he was attacked by young football players after an amateur match. As a result, all matches in amateur football this weekend were cancelled.

The coverage of Jallo is bolded. The latter two sentences are just regurgitating what Jallo said in the quote, and the first sentence is even more regurgitation. There is zero secondary contribution. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so now it is not two sentences but three sentences. That's 150% of the claim in your comprehensive review! And is that really all? Does the name Jallo really have to appear in each sentence in order for the coverage to be about him? The word "that", for example, clearly refers to Gaby Jallo not agreeing with a linesman decision and then changing his mind. This entire article is about Gaby Jallo and includes background. Not a different topic. You introduced very nice graphics to this page (kudos for that!), pulled people behind you with a -sorry I have to say this- imprecise presentation, and now a player who is a minority within a minority in the Netherlands can't be kept, like other players with far less games? That would be a very sad result of your imprecise analysis! gidonb (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Each article is judged on its own merit. Simione001 (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! This merit was unjustifiably discounted! Plus to know a bit of context hasn't yet hurt anyone. gidonb (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the article doesnt pass WP:GNG. Sounds like another case of WP:ILIKEIT. Simione001 (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem here is that the sources were misvalued. The article deserves to be kept on its merits. I also have a question for you. Why did you start this AfD exactly 1 minute after you created the previous one, with almost no rationale, and now argue under already the opinions of three keep-sayers? Is that perhaps what Giant meant? gidonb (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Simione clearly made zero effort to locate sources before nominating for deletion. GiantSnowman 11:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The spacing between nomination's doesnt prove anything, your purely speculatiing and in any case its not relevant anyway. The fact is that the article doesnt pass WP:GNG which was the original basis for the nomination. Simione001 (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latter two "sentences" operate grammatically as one sentence, and the first sentence is a summary of them that provides zero additional info. Really I should have said we functionally have one sentence of coverage. And where exactly is this "background" on Jallo? What can we say about Jallo from that source? A couple sentences describing the death of a completely different person is not coverage of Jallo at all. Literally all we have is that he initially approached a ref to complain about a call, and then decided not to pursue it, and this action happened during a brief period of heightened awareness over ref treatment so a couple outlets noted it. This incident that generated at most 3 sentences mentioning Jallo has not been discussed whatsoever in the 11 years since. It's trivia. JoelleJay (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not speculating. I'm stating facts. Your entire - repetitive - defense under already three keep-sayers completely collapsed. If you had taken more than a minute you wouldn't have nominated an article for which it is impossible to write much of an intro and check for sources in one minute, an absolute must by the golden WP:NEXIST rule. Like wisely (!) Joelle, please stop arguing and nominate/analyze better next time. Just follow the rules. If you do, something good would have come out of this AfD debacle! I cannot stress this enough: everyone makes mistakes. It's ok as long as we learn from these. gidonb (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight: you're sniffily chastising me for counting Jallo did not agree with a decision by the linesman and wanted to make this known to him. Until he changed his mind and wanted to make a statement. as one sentence, as if that's some egregious delinquency that has misled subsequent !voters. And then you're further implying there's some conscious or unconscious element of racism in my discounting this and the other trivial sources? JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No no, the "racism", if this assumption is true at all, would be that of the press that covered him less. Also it's not clear if this should be called racism. A less accusatory way to look at this would be, for example, news consumption with language as a proxy. Hence the quotes. Just relating back to your text. Journalists always had a general idea what people read more and what people read less. Nowadays, with A/B testing, clicking has become science. 100 games in professional football leagues leads in other cases to a HUGE amount of coverage. Plus, in my observation thus far it's not just minorities. Footballers and others from Flevoland (Jallo is not among these) also receive less coverage because of a weaker regional identity culminating in, for example, no major regional press. These are impressions based on previous AfDs and a result of always analyzing data. Right above I said: I'm not speculating. I'm stating facts. It should be clear that this part is quite the opposite. gidonb (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cant make up your own criteria to justify keeping an article. Simione001 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! That's why I checked that the WP:GNG is met. I gave this much more than a minute ;-) gidonb (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep repeating yourself? Simione001 (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Meanwhile I have added references to the article. It can be kept as WP:HEY. 04:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly notable footballer in the top Dutch League with plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - enough sources and coverage to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I came by expecting to close this as "keep", but the arguments are weak enough that they pushed me to opine instead. The substantive coverage is simply not there, and I don't see a convincing rebuttal to the substance of JoelleJay's source analysis above. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete JoelleJay's analysis of the sources is excellent, and the attempts to rebut her analysis have only shown how weak they are. The existence of the Dutch Wikipedia article isn't evidence that there's room for improvement rather than deletion, since its sources are also not substantive (3 out of 4 sources are from the football club's official website). – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 11:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gaby_Jallo&oldid=1191455092"