Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folarin Balogun (2nd nomination)

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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folarin Balogun

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

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

Recently deleted by AFD (three days ago!) and now re-created, but I don't think it's eligible for G4 as he has made his first senior appearance. However, he still fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (as his 16 minute cameo was against a team not from a fully-professional league). I suggest this is deleted and SALTed to prevent re-creation until such time as he is notable, at which point it can be easily restored - but draftifying is also fine if there is consensus for that. GiantSnowman 13:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep two appearances for the Arsenal first team, now there is loads of sources on the web for this player for GNG after his Europa league appearance. Also I bet he will be in the squad again for the Molde game. Govvy (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: nope, only one appearance, in the Europa League against Dundalk. If/when he plays against FPL team again it can be restored - WP:CRYSTAL. GiantSnowman 09:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I had to re-read the article, I only did a quick scan and looked at the Europa BBC report. 16 minutes first team football! not much play, sounds like a good prospect know. I would of moved this to draft space on it's recreation. Govvy (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/draftify - could well meet GNG/NFOOTY in the future but equally may not. I see no problem with this being sent to draft space along with the hundreds of other footballers with potential for future notability Spiderone 11:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Could meet notabiliy in near future. So I think better to keep in draftspace.WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Though his in-game appearance was minimal, there's now been enough articles written on him where I think he marginally passes WP:GNG covering his appearance. There's a good mount of recentism, but he's been linked to million-dollar transfers to places like Brentford or Sheffield United in the press, and I think there's enough out there to expand the article. This isn't an instance where someone played a few minutes against Inter Zaprešić in Round 24 of the 1.HNL ten years ago and then never did again - this is the case of a young prospect playing for one of the top clubs in Europe in the group stage of a major continental competition. If he fails to make the grade, he's either going to play elsewhere where he'll qualify, or there will be coverage about how he didn't make it - that's the level of skill we're discussing here. That being said, I don't oppose a draftify until he plays again, which should be relatively soon. SportingFlyer T·C 15:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: where are all these sources which indicate "significant coverage" of the player, to meet GNG? GiantSnowman 15:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[1] [2] appear to be good ones related to his debut (not too familiar with the Express though.) There's a bit of other coverage from Metro, but I'm not sure what qualifies as a tabloid and what's an okay source honestly. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: there's plenty of good sources out there about this player, if you just google him. And plenty of other of pages of young players who have done far less in their career.
Express is akin to Daily Mail, and never heard of 'Sporting News', so neither of those look reliable. Metro might be OK. GiantSnowman 10:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sporting News is one of the oldest North American sports magazines. It may be a reprint of a goal.com article, but I have no issues with that publication. SportingFlyer T·C 11:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like me to be topic banned then please raise at WP:ANI. GiantSnowman 19:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should also be blocked for deleting attempts to improve the article combined with false claims of lack of attribution. That you are more concerned about your attribution here, than improving Wikipedia, really makes clear your motive here to delete the article. As a result, this should be a Speedy Keep as a WP:POINTy nomination. No good comes from ANI which is a bizarre process. Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You copied content from their user sandbox, and they reverted your copying with attribution concerns and this started an edit war. If GiantSnowman had reverted original content I would be concerned but I don't have an issue with them reverting information copied over from their userspace if they don't think it's ready. This also isn't eligible for a speedy keep, and I don't think it's wikilawyering - it's a recreation of a very recently deleted article that might now meet notability guidelines (I think it does) but does not meet the SNG to the "letter of the law." It's really not worth arguing over - I'd just vote "keep" and let the process play out, and since GiantSnowman objected to your copy, make original edits to the article if you'd like. SportingFlyer T·C 20:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - seems to be just enough coverage to justify an article. And I fail to see why users are so competitive about creating articles - if an article fails our notability guidelines, it should be deleted regardless of whether the nominator already had a draft in their userspace. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that mean User:Microwave Anarchist that the nominator shouldn't be making the nomination, and leaving it to others? I have no stake in this, or awareness of the player, before commenting at this AFD. Meanwhile the nominator is actually reverting attempts to improve the article! Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: I don't have a problem with them making the nomination, and I don't believe there are guidelines against it. Also they removed that content for copyright reasons, not because they didn't want to improve the article. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright reasons? First I've heard - tell me more User:Microwave Anarchist. On my talk page it was all about them, noting that it was a violation of WP:Copying within Wikipedia (which is false, as that's about unattributed stuff, and I explicitly attributed them in the edit summary). Nfitz (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution is required for copyright, and what you did was probably insufficient. If the article is kept, a WP:HISTMERGE is probably appropriate. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how if my edits stood, and there was a history merge, how there wouldn't be more than enough for copyright. Either way it's moot, I've simply expanded it from scratch. Nfitz (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added 13 references, some meet GNG. Not sure how it failed AFD the first time, or why the closing editor didn't, as suggested, draftify it. Nfitz (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The manager of Arsenal has suggested that he will keep giving him first-team appearances soon[1], so it seems that, IF this currently meets deletion criteria due to lack of coverage by RS and is deleted/draftified, it'll just be recreated again with many more of those coming in a week or two. It seems overtly pedantic to delete this again, even more so with the sources added by u:Nfitz. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 14:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At worst maybe it should be draftifed but it’s just barely good for GNG and will only get better. SK2242 (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2020 (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.
  1. ^ https://www.arsenal.com/news/arteta-willock-pepe-and-balogun
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Folarin_Balogun_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=987733586"