Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Rewenig

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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Rewenig[edit]

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

Marcel Rewenig (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)

Fails WP:GNG as no WP:SIGCOV provided or identifiable. WP:NFOOTBALL is met, but per WP:NSPORTS that only provides a presumption of notability, and GNG is still required. BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NFOOTY #1, having played in 24 international matches and scoring two goals. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 24 caps is notable. Felixsv7 (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - international player with 24 caps for his country = clearly notable. Has nom followed BEFORE? unsurprising that sources are not online given when he was active. GiantSnowman 10:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and I was unable to identify any significant coverage without which the article cannot be kept; WP:GNG must still be met as WP:NSPORTS does not replace it, and the article currently violates the core policy WP:OR which forbids us from basing articles entirely on primary sources. BilledMammal (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he did play 24 matches so he's notable. Dr Salvus 10:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GS' rationale above. Clog Wolf Howl 10:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Played international football, there must be better sources out there for his time at international level. I bet this article can be improved greatly with correct research. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly passes WP:NFOOTY with 24 (!) international caps. In-depth sources will naturally be difficult to find online for a 1940s player. Nehme1499 13:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others above; notable. Eagleash (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above. I can understand deleting articles on players who only ever made one club appearance, but this is a guy who represented his country in international competition for six years -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - these AFDs are becoming a bit ridiculous, I think for international players there should be some protection.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per all the others. Kante4 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a primary source in Wikipedia's sense is a source produced by the subject himself or someone immediately connected to the subject. "A secondary source provides an author's own [...] synthesis of the facts [...] taken from primary sources". It is not original research to inform of Rewenig playing those 24 matches, nor that he captained the team in over half of those matches. Geschichte (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statistical databases are primary sources; they neither "contain an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" (secondary sources) nor do they "summarize primary and secondary sources" (tertiary sources). The article also fails WP:GNG, and since WP:NSPORTS states that it does not replace GNG it cannot be used to justify that failure. BilledMammal (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal, I think it's fair to assume there are enough proper sources out there for a player who made 24 appearances for his national team. It's just hard to find them because Rewenig played in pre-internet times. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might be correct, although given the prominence of the team, the fact that most of those matches were friendlies, and the fact that there was less coverage in the era he played in we cannot be confident that there are. Further, unless we can identify those sources, the article violates both policy and guidelines, and needs to be deleted - or as an alternative that I would support, moved to draft space to give editors extra time to find those sources. BilledMammal (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They contain a synthesis of sources. They collect sources from somewhere and thus builds a secondary source upon those sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A primary source doesn't become a secondary source because it is placed in a database with other primary sources; a group of first hand accounts are no less primary than a single first hand account. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Assertions that playing 24 matches means he's notable are directly at odds with our guidelines and should be disregarded. No one in this AfD or at NFOOTY has offered any evidence that 95% of players of his time period and location meet GNG, nor has anyone pointed to a particular newspaper or book that could credibly contain SIGCOV. Without such assurances we have zero basis to claim 24 games means anything at all with regards to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting articles just because they don't have "modern" every-match coverage is pointless. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NFOOTY has played 24 International matches.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NFOOTY. Needs improving not deleting. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noting this. It was already listed at Wikiproject Football's "list of association football-related deletions", as well as "list of Football-related deletion discussions", and to post it a second time to a partisan audience seems to be a WP:CANVASS violation. I ask that the closer take this into account when closing, particularly considering the number of people who have presented arguments that appear to have been suggested by the title of that thread - that he was an international footballer, and so must be notable. BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some of the keepers can actually provide some substantial coverage instead of simply parroting a heavily disputed SNG which states that articles still have to meet the GNG even if they meet the standards of the SNG, a fact they happily ignore. Fram (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article and this pointless AFD provide clear evidence that GNG is deeply flawed and should be removed from WP:N. It is obvious that someone who played in 24 international football matches is a notable topic per NFOOTY. To say that Assertions that playing 24 matches means he's notable are directly at odds with our guidelines and should be disregarded defies WP:COMMONSENSE and breaches WP:IAR. The fact that this guy doesn't meet the GNG means that the GNG is out of touch and is "at odds" with reality. As for "substantial coverage", how do you measure substantial? The article cites three sources and no one has said any of them fail WP:RS so that is sufficient coverage for an article with 65 words. Finally, I think there is a wider concern here around excessive AFD nominations and I recall that someone was blocked a year or more ago for that sort of indiscriminate activity. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As you are well aware, NSPORT is explicitly subordinate to GNG, so invoking NFOOTY to assert he is notable is directly at odds with what NSPORT says.
    It is obvious that someone who played in 24 international football matches is a notable topic per NFOOTY football project editors. FTFY. That project is a tiny subset of the overall Wikipedia community and its opinion should be given proportional weight as such.
    As for the sources: 1. Is a broad database and clearly not sufficient for notability, as stated by NSPORT itself: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases. 2. See 1. 3. He is mentioned alongside dozens of pre-War Luxembourgish footballers in a cultural magazine with historical and cultural articles on the social development of Luxembourg City. Since 1979, the magazine has been distributed free of charge to all households in the city with a circulation of over 50,000 copies. This is plainly trivial coverage as well. 4. See 1. An article based on these sources fails WP:NOT by virtue of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:MEMORIAL (which has the added guidance re: biographies Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements.) JoelleJay (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't done a thorough search yet (so no definitive statement on the suitability of the article), but all (and I mean every single one) of the keep votes (they are not !votes) should be dismissed, as they are fundamentally at odds with policy (and on top of that, many are clearly canvassed, see the ANI thread, here). Articles do not get a special exemption from meeting GNG and other policies and guidelines because their topic is a sportsperson, and merely meeting an arbitrary criteria is not grounds for inclusion (as very clearly and unambiguously stated in NSPORTS, and seemingly ignored by every single one of the keep votes): Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of [sic.] any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. [...] (emphasis mine); and from the FAQ: Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.. Arguments deliberately ignoring this should hold no weight, as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not superior to community consensus. As for the IAR argument, I don't see how this article subject is exceptional enough to warrant such a treatment (again, IAR is supposed to be an exception, not a get-out-of-jail-free card used to avoid community consensus when one disagrees with it), and keeping a short article which is not much more than a database entry (sourced, accordingly, to four different databases...) is not an "improvement to the encyclopedia" - it very much furthers systematic bias and does not provide much useful information to the reader in return (as those readers could just as likely look up the relevant databases, which are also openly accessible....) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Easily meets NFOOTBALL. This isn't a borderline case, but a player with numerous international caps. We assume such historical players are notable, because it's very unlikely that if we had access to Luxembourgish archives, that we'd not be able to find significant coverage. I can't fathom why anyone would be wasting everyone's time with such nominations. Nfitz (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, your argument holds no weight. Passing NFOOTBALL is not a criterion for keeping. It's an indication that there might be sources (it is not proof, either, that sources "must exist"). If these hypothetical sources cannot be presented in a timely manner, then the article should be deleted or redirected to a suitable target. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG is a shortcut to a bit in WP:N. At the top of WP:N it clearly gives equal weight to GNG and SNG (section starting with A topic is presumed to merit an article if: .... Nfitz (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And if we look at the SNG in question (NSPORT) it clearly says in at least five different places that it is subordinate to GNG. Regardless of how we interpret what N says about GNG vs SNG, athlete articles still require GNG sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to be difficult, User:JoelleJay, but I don't see any of those places in WP:NSPORT - there's only 11 references to GNG in NSPORT, most in sections for each sport, saying if you don't meet SNG you can meet GNG. Can you point me to these? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to expand the FAQ at the top of the page. BilledMammal (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting - I've never considered the FAQ as part of the guideline. Surely if the FAQ contradicts guidelines, then the guideline takes precedent. Though even the FAQ isn't conclusive, with Q1 giving an out of when you think there are sources available, but just need to find them (which is surely the case here, with a pre-modern era player where sources would be in foreign languages). Q2 simply says sources must be found eventually. Q4 doesn't define the timeframe. I'd say that by applying the WP:NORUSH, then the appropriate timeframe to source a player like this, is when Luxembourgish newspaper archives from the relevant time period are available. It's not like this is a case of a player with one or two matches, or a player from a country with a very good newspaper archive, and no trace of coverage. In fact, we do get traces for this player, even now, implying he was a major force. Nfitz (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As it is on the page of the guideline, rather than just the talk, it is part of the guideline. #1 gives an out to stop the article being "quickly deleted" - ie, PROD or CSD. It can't apply to AFD, otherwise articles passing a guideline within NSPORT could never be deleted, which is clearly not the case. BilledMammal (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first sentence of NSPORT: 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.
    The third sentence of NSPORT: If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
    The second and third sentences of the Applicable policies and guidelines section: In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should 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.
    The first and second sentences of SPORTCRIT: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have participated in or achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level.
    NSPORT is supposed to be used to identify subjects that are likely to meet the GNG, and the above sentences repeatedly state GNG (or BASIC, which is derived from GNG) is the inclusion criterion for a standalone athlete biography. JoelleJay (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very unique readiing of the criteria. it's quite clear from the consensus in the project that articles for players like this who are not only meeting NSPORTS, but very much exceeding it, from the pre-modern era, in an absence of available material to even search for sources, are kept. Please indicate which Luxembourg media archives you've searched to find sources Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a unique reading of the criteria. It is literally what the outcome of a 2017 RfC determined: NSPORT is subordinate to GNG, and arguments at AfD must go beyond stating the subject meets a sport-specific guideline. This has been affirmed in the admin close statements of numerous deletions of people who met an SSG but not GNG and had a substantial number of editors !voting keep based on the SSG, e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. etc.
    And please indicate which Luxembourg media archives you would expect to have SIGCOV of this person. JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Le Archives nationales de Luxembourg. Veuillez indiquer quelles archives de médias luxembourgeoises que vous ne attendriez pas d'avoir le SIGCOV a lui! In response to this AFD I think we are now at 20 keeps, and 2 deletes - consensus is very clear. Why do you insist on dying on this hill! Time for a topic ban? Nfitz (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome to propose a topic ban for either myself of JoelleJay at ANI, but this is the wrong place to do so and could be seen as an attempt to intimidate us. And consensus isn't based on votes, it is based on the weight of arguments, and "Keep per NFOOTY" votes have very little weight. BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a failure of WP:AGF to assume that the suggestion of a topic ban in a discussion that's virtually a snow keep, and overwhelmingly a a keep, is intimidation! Please remember that AGF is paramount and is much more important than any guideline we've discussed here. Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe that I or JoelleJay warrant a topic ban, or if you believe my response to that suggestion violated WP:AGF, take it to ANI - this is the wrong place for that discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to List of Luxembourg international footballers as there is no indication that there are suitable sources with which to write an encyclopedic article. No topic is inherently notable, and, particularly in the case of biographies, it would be better if more in-depth sources (with which to meet the basic requirements of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) could be presented. Since that does not appear to be the case, then the logical thing to do would be to redirect this to the appropriate list page. If someone in the future can bother to find actual encyclopedic coverage, nothing prevents them from re-writing this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per NFOOTY. I'm sure that if I were given access to the old Luxembourg newspapers that Rewenig would pass the GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NFOOTY isn't a reason to keep. As for the rest, we can't write article based on hypothetical "old newspapers" (which may, or may not, cover the subject to significant depth...). Either show the sources, or stop making special pleading that "WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST". Sportsmen are not exempt from the rest of the encyclopedia's guidelines. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if NFOOTY is not a valid reason to keep (and I think it certainly is valid) then I'll be taking an IAR approach to this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I also said, IAR is not a get-out-of-jail-card-free-and-ignore-community-consensus option either. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override the basic requirement for articles not to be based on databases and routine non-significant coverage, nor can't it relieve the burden of proof of showing the existence of sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are already sources reliable and neutral enough for a stub. If GNG is a guideline there can still be exceptions, particularly in conflicts between GNG and SNG, and articles for which sources are less likely to be online. If there can be no exceptions then remove the guideline template from Wikipedia:Notability. A865 (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no conflict "between GNG and SNG". The SNG itself requires GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is for uncommon situations BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Rubbish. That is an essay which has no authority and an AFD about a footybio is not uncommon. WP:IAR documents a policy and its purpose is to stop misapplication of rules from preventing the improvement and/or maintenance of the encyclopaedia. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If rules were to be ignored whenever they are even slightly inconvenient, then there's be absolutely no point in having them. Exceptions (as the word itself suggests) should not be the rule and there should be some exceptional reason why we should keep an article on somebody who doesn't meet GNG, and of whom we can say very little about. No such "exceptional reason" has been provided, nor could. Keeping such an article simply does not "improve the encyclopedia". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to List of Luxembourg international footballers. The appeal to NFOOTBALL has always been a nonsense/circular argument: "we've arbitrarily defined our favoured players/leagues as being inherently notable. One of them is up for deletion, but he meets our criteria... so he must be notable" Give me a break! What matters is WP:GNG and we don't even know the rudiments of this guy's biography, what he did for a living etc. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well WP:NFOOTY states (for international players) - "The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that's just clumsy wording which needs revision because that's not what happens in practice. On top of that, that sentence is quite at odds with what NSPORTS says, which, as I quoted above, is that meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. So NFOOTY is maybe an indication that coverage might possibly exist, but it is not a valid reason in and of itself to keep an article (as further clarified by the FAQ), nor is it positive proof that such coverage exists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"We all know that's just clumsy wording which needs revision because that's not what happens in practice." If that is indeed the case, then it'll need an RfC to change it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That wording doesn't look at all clumsy to me. It states categorically that international footballers attract media attention, as they do and always have done, and so it is futile to pretend that they might not be notable. The wording is correct and can be taken at face value. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should be able to provide significant coverage. Further, WP:NSPORTS states "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline", which means that the awkward wording there is irrelevant. BilledMammal (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has only 65 words and yet it is supported by three WP:RS. More than sufficient coverage. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And of those 65 words, only 8 (the very last sentence) provide anything but basically statistical and mundane information (which, unsurprisingly, is sourced to sports databases with indiscriminate standards of inclusion). That is not "significant coverage", as understood for the purposes of writing an encyclopedia and not a sports database. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make a bold edit to add NFOOTY to the list of SNGs on WP:N, you are welcome to. But until such time there is a consensus for elevating NFOOTY to SNG status it will remain subordinate to NSPORT, which is itself subordinate to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well again I quote N:FOOTY which shows that GNG is already met (for international players) - "The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to interpret it that way then I would suggest opening an RFC to change the wording of WP:NSPORTS to allow that interpretation - or, as JoelleJay said, seeking to remove WP:NFOOTY from under WP:NSPORT and establish it as an independent SNG. BilledMammal (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria" - accepted by who? A very narrow subset of WP:Football editors who have a vested interest in protecting their favoured articles, that's who. Calling it clumsy wording is actually pretty charitable. I'm an experienced football editor myself and I know that in practical terms it's arrant nonsense. It's based on a (historically illiterate) projection of modern-day rolling 24-hr media coverage into the distant past. I always think of the example of Mel Charles getting back from the 1958 FIFA World Cup and his neighbour asking him where he'd been on holiday! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, struggling to find much in the way of significant historical coverage, perhaps not that surprising. The best so far is this snippet in an article (with what I think is his photo) which suggests he "formed one of the best trios in the country with Jim Kremer and the new strike leader of the [Blau-Gelben Gales]" (this is a translation so isn't 100% assured). Also he features on a team photo here from 1950 in which he was part of the successful Spora side which won a 1950 final 5-1 "against the red boys" (probably the 1950 Luxembourg Cup). This is all using translation tools so I can't go very far with it. I am not saying this proves anything either way, it's just a passing comment. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - clearly passes GNG via WP:NFOOTY. A lot of people basing their notability from online references they find via Google. Seems a bit slapdash and lazy to me. 2A00:23C7:E915:1201:FCD6:B2E9:53B5:2DFE (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC) — 2A00:23C7:E915:1201:FCD6:B2E9:53B5:2DFE (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
To be fair Bungle, who – with all due respect – seems much more competent than you (insofar as they seem to know where any coverage might have been), had a look and came up more or less empty handed. The best and brightest of WP:Football have presumably tried looking for some sources and failed too. I have a knack for ferreting out information about obscure footballers so I looked myself but found diddly-squat. Therefore unless anyone else finds some SIGCOV, even the "presumption of notability" suggested by the seriously flawed SNG is rebutted. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
22 international caps for a nation is more than significant enough, we have entries for him on FIFA, the Olympics, and every major footballing database. We have articles linking him to his son Guy Rewenig, who also has Wikipedia page. He is clearly significant, and your silly and tired argument does not conform to reality, but instead a seemingly personal vendetta.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@the SPA IP: You can't "pass GNG via NFOOTY", unless you don't understand plain and simple English, because that is simply not what NFOOTY/NSPORTS says. As for the rest, databases are, explicitly, not significant coverage, and notability is not inherited, even if he were the father of the Queen of England (notability still has to be established independently, by the showing of the existence of proper sources). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Point me, User:Bring back Daz Sampson to which Luxembourg newspaper archive that's been searched. At some point in the future when they have been searched, and if nothing is found, then it's possible that this would become a delete - though that would be very unusual with so many international caps - especially in an era when there were a lot less international games. Looking at Luxembourg's history of games, he must have played in every senior international match during that 8-year period. I'm really stunned anyone would suggest deleting this very strong pass of WP:SPORT. Nfitz (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is still nothing more than special pleading. We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have. You can't write a proper article without access to the sources, and merely assuming their existence doesn't allow you to write an article based on non-existent sources. This can be redirected for the time being, and if, at some point, somebody finds something with which to write a proper encyclopedic article, then, yes, it can be made into one. As has been said countless times, and despite people ignoring it, NSPORTS is not a criteria for inclusion; since, very clearly, and it says so, in the very first sentence, 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,. While it is true that most footballers with international caps are likely to meet GNG, that is not a 100% guaranteed case, and so far, the whole of the keep argument has been entirely off-the-mark. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm usually to be found in the keep camp at footballer AfDs, but experience has shown that to successfully fend off the deletionists there needs to be some sort of actual coverage. Invariably they'll look to find fault with it and there'll be some back and forth about whether or not it's enough. But here there's nothing – so frankly the deletionists are right and they win this one. Best we can do here is make a dignified concession. Dogmatically insisting on a false version of WP:NFOOTBALL won't cut it now (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 11#Pete_Vainowski). It's just insulting everyone's intelligence, although I accept that strategy has found success in the past. We could always bring the article back if there's ever any mileage in these unevidenced claims of hypothetical coverage. Until then we only have enough for one sentence in the son's article: His father Marcel was a [? - butcher/baker/candlestick-maker] and keen amateur footballer, who appeared for the Luxembourg national team in the days before the sport enjoyed mainstream popularity. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No personal offence is meant, but why would you start this obviously fraught AfD while we're in the middle of changing the rule?? You know it's going to be extremely contentious. With respect, it seems like you're just trying to be controversial for the sake of being controversial. Curbon7 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't realize that it was going to be controversial; it seemed to be a clear case of failing WP:GNG and thus WP:NSPORTS, a situation that has recently resulted in the article in question usually being deleted. I also didn't consider the nomination in that context, although you make a good point that it would have been a good idea to wait till that discussion was over and then nominate it.
However, we are here now, and your input, to keep or delete, would be welcomed. BilledMammal (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here we are now? You can always withdraw the nomination. Also, User:BilledMamma, where do you see in the guidelines that to pass NSPORTS you have to pass GNG. That would render all the SNGs irrelevant. Many times the guidance says needs to meet one or the other to be presumed notable. The project has been very clear about keeping players who aren't from the modern era, who would no doubt be notable if we had access to contemporary sources - and that includes any player with dozens of international matches! Also User:Curbon7 - change what rule? Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nfitz, the proposition to change/eliminate NSPORTS. It's been at the Village Pump for like 2 weeks. Curbon7 (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, since when User:Curbon7, did we do RFP's for notability at the Village Pump rather than at the relevant talk page, as directed by policy by the guidelines. Village Pump is supposed to be for new proposals and an incubator for other changes. Not the forum where we change existing policy. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nfitz, I mean no personal offense, but I really don't care. I only minimally participated in that RfC, and want no more part in it. Additionally it's been listed at WP:CENT since the beginning. Curbon7 (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it's probably better to mention your concerns there than here. Curbon7 (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have indeed commented there. Such a poor idea, which would greatly increase the already problematic WP:BIAS against those not in the anglosphere. Nfitz (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nfitz, passes WP:NFOOTY. WP:N makes it clear that notability is presumed if an article passes either GNG or an SNG. NemesisAT (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @NemesisAT Good thing the SNG in question explicitly says GNG must be met to merit a standalone article! That makes the "or" in WP:N completely irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring that WP:N overarches SPORT, NSPORT says that eventually sources must be found. There's every expectation that when material is available from this particular region, that sources will be found, given they have scores of international caps. As there is WP:NORUSH we can wait until such archives are digitized - or someone can visit the appropriate archives. Please don't exaggerate what NSPORT says, and make something that is shade of grey, black and white. Also N and NSPORT clearly allowed for discretion. I don't understand the need for debate here - it ignores that precedents have been long and clearly set. It's not like this is a borderline case! Also, I don't understand why you need to argue with each and every person, long after the outcome here is clear. Please follow WP:BATTLE and WP:WIN. Nfitz (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - capped for his nation several times therefore clearly a prominent sports figure. If we had access to the necessary newspapers, I'm sure that we could build a lengthy and substantial article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:31, 6 February 2022 (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/Marcel_Rewenig&oldid=1073184172"