Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Pogba (2nd nomination)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pogba[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pogba still hasn't made a first-team appearance for a fully professional club. He's been on the bench for Man Utd, but according to WP:FOOTY's notability criteria, that's not enough. Any other coverage of this individual is merely speculative regarding his future playing prospects. Many, many footballers have been lauded in their youth without making a professional appearance, and Pogba may be no different. To assume that he will have a notable professional career is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. – Pee Jay 00:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - sigh, this article has been deleted by CSD, PROD and AfD many, many times before. He has done nothing of note, failing both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Any coverage he has received fails WP:NTEMP, and can be arguably traced back to WP:BLP1E - none of which allow for this fellow to have an article! Giant Snowman 00:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Player is highly regarded in the amateur leagues and frequently in the news. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Subjects do not have to meet the notability guideline that closely matches their career choice. In this case, the subject fails WP:ATHLETE. However, we have another guideline to judge by: WP:GNG. Per GNG, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article clearly lists six reliable sources that are independent of the subject and independent of each other. These each have significant coverage of the subject. Infact, this source itself says that "notable players ... include Paul Pogba". The previous AfD was almost two years ago, much has changed and evolved since then. In addition, most of the CSDs were G12s which we based off that two year old AfD. Again, clearly meets WP:GNG.--v/r - T P 00:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the coverage "significant"? - to me only one piece, by the Mail, is. Giant Snowman 01:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That source, isn't a Wikipedia guideline for notability. --Jimbo^[online] 12:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note my rationale for first honoring the WP:CSD#G4 and then restoring. The article is substantially improved. Content and sourcing are different from before. Much has changed in the two years since the last AFD. The question is now whether or not the subject meets the WP:GNG. It would be wise to consider what reliable sourcing is available but not yet in the article before deleting. I would certainly not salt the article. This is the second AfD. It would have been more prudent to wait for the subject to meet WP:Athlete before recreating. The issue would not be murky. Salting while the possibility of the subject meeting WP:GNG or WP:Athlete remains would only cause more drama later. Should the subject not yet prove notable, userfication would be preferential to deletion so that when/if notability is met, the article will have been kept up to date and ready to roll back to article space. Dlohcierekim 01:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Circumstances really haven't changed that much since the article was first deleted. The only thing that has happened is that Pogba has stepped up from the United academy to the reserve team (still not noteworthy). He's still getting similar plaudits about his talent as he was 2 years ago. – Pee Jay 01:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NFOOTY is an inclusive guideline, so if a soccer player meets WP:GNG, but not NSPORTS, they still meet Wikipedia's definition of notable. As is abundantly clear from simply clicking the google news archive link above, Pogba has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and therefore meets GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage beyond the WP:NTEMP match reports and routine news items. --Jimbo^[online] 12:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As he has not played for United, he fails WP:NSPORT, and the coverage he has received is routine meaning he also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2011 (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.