Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pipi (footballer)

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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pipi (footballer)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and really articles like this should not be nominated for destruction, that's not what AfD is for. For notability, he's one of the top 50 players in the world in his cohort (according to the Guardian). The heck more do you want. He plays for Real Madrid, one of the top and most famous teams in the world, in a top league, so he meets NFOOTBALL, and he meets the GNG too as there are 11 refs which is enough to support this reasonably-sized article. Herostratus (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every Real Madrid youngster is notable and not every 'wonderkid' in The Guardian's list of '60 of the best young talents in world football' is notable. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - "He plays for Real Madrid, one of the top and most famous teams in the world, in a top league, so he meets NFOOTBALL" - he has never actually played a match for Real Madrid, so in fact he doesn't meet NFOOTBALL, as the nominator correctly states...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Passing WP:NFOOTBALL does not mean the subject is automatically notable. It only means that the subject is likely to have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. One game or 100 games, there always has do be significant coverage (which I believe is the case here, as I argue for below). Alvaldi (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG as there is significant coverage available that goes into the subject in detail, including from El Confidencial, Goal.com and Diario AS. Alvaldi (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Two Spanish newspapers and Goal.com NXGN Series, is it enough to pass GNG? --Corwin of Amber (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Corwin of Amber: GNG requires multiple reliable sources so they all contribute to it. There is more substantial coverage found, for instance this article from China's Sina.com and this from the Daily Mail. I also found several articles in Japanese about the subject but I'm not knowledgeable enough about Japanese media to know which ones are reliable so those do not factor into my opinion. All in all, it is my opinion that the subject comfortably passes WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe that's enough, maybe not, I just don't understand the logic of some posters. For example, in one case GiantSnowman states that 1 article in French newspaper is enough for GNG, in the other he states that multiple newspaper mentions are not enough for GNG. With no explanation. Le Parisien is 'is very significant' while Nettavisen, Manchester Evening News, Aftenposten are not? Goal.com and AS.com are good sources? Then in another case the same sources are 'not enough' to keep the article. Such a shame that such bias exists. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Corwin of Amber: I can't comment on the quality of the articles in the case of Isak Hansen-Aarøen as none of them are referenced in his AFD. Substantial articles in those publications would definitely go towards WP:GNG. If there were multiple articles from them of a similar quality as the Le Parisien article then Hansen-Aarøen probably passes WP:GNG. In the case of Mejbri, as good as the Le Parisien article is, GNG requires multiple significant sources over some time for the subject to pass. For the record, Mejbri seems to pass with the sources in his article. Alvaldi (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree the coverage is beyond that usually given to young prospects and he meets GNG. GiantSnowman 11:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Double standards by @GiantSnowman: again. Never explains why 'Player A' meets GNG and 'Player B' fails GNG. No explanation, just pure subjective opinion. I think that the lack of consistency and strict criteria about reliable sources is highly damaging. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Corwin of Amber: stop badgering participants / being rude and uncivil. Giant Snowman 17:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is surprisingly a lot of coverage for this young player, I feel there is more than enough around to easily pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per above. ColinBear (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject has received significant coverage and meets WP: GNG. ColinBear (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:AFDEQ: Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Also: Wikipedia's policy is that each of these processes is not decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus. Only one person in discussion (Alvaldi) provided some specific sources, the others said about some 'coverage' and 'GNG' without any arguments. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is clear that you have started this AfD as you feel there is not much difference between Pipi and Isak Hansen-Aarøen, whose page you created and was later deleted. However, there is definitely a difference between this article and the one for Hansen-Aarøen. There are numerous articles written specifically about Pipi, in Spanish, Japanese and English, while the coverage for Hansen-Aarøen is relatively small. While I am surprised that the coverage for Hansen-Aarøen hasn't been larger, it just isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG, whereas this, this, this, this as well as this Japanese article (and many other Japanese articles) are more than enough. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We discuss Pipi here. If you want to discuss Hansen-Aarøen sources welcome here (I doubt you have already checked all the sources). Hansen-Aarøen, Hannibal Mejbri, Luqman Hakim Shamsudin are just the examples as there is no logic and consistency in assessment of young footballers' notability. For example, Spanish, Japanese and Malaysian newspapers are good for GNG, but, say, Norway newspapers are not reliable? --Corwin of Amber (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're the one who brought up Hansen-Aarøen earlier in this AfD, and from that moment it became clear why exactly you have started this. If I'd seen the AfD for Hansen-Aarøen, and seen the sources provided, I probably would've voted keep - this article looks very promising in terms of passing GNG, but is subscription locked. However you cannot argue that there are less sources for Pipi or Mejbri, because you are including articles about transfer speculation, the eventual transfer and brief mentions in articles - of which both Pipi and Mejbri have (minus Pipi from transfer speculation because there have never been any rumours about him leaving Madrid). These kinds of articles are not really enough to suffice for GNG, from what I've gathered in my time on Wikipedia. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While wunderkids are not always notable, there's clearly enough sourcing here across different languages to support an article. Easily passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets GNG with extensive international coverage. Nfitz (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passed WP:GNG. Numerous sources, all signifying his notability as future prospects for Real Madrid. The coverage from Guardian also further adds to his notability. His international play for Japan U-15 didn't establish notability, but coupled with others he is surely notable. SunDawn (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite not passing the SNG, he does meet WP:GNG due to significant coverage in Marca, AS, El Confidencial and other major publications Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 5 May 2021 (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.