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. This has a been a contentious and argumentative debate. However, the dispute pivots on the lack of available sources, and in particular the observation that the player's notability is contained entirely in a time when online sources would be reasonably expected to be available. Therefore, the WP:GNG concerns by those advocating deletion trump the WP:NFOOTY arguments by those wanting to keep. I have also observed that most "keep" !votes have been adequately refuted by those advocating deletion, while "delete" !votes have been largely ignored. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has played for the national team, but this hasn't apparently generated any significant coverage at all. One of these cases were the "presumed" notability of WP:NSPORTS seems to be too optimistic, and "actual", required notability is missing. Fram (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what? If someone has done something that no one bothered to write about in any depth, then why should we have an "article" on it? We just had an RfC decide that every sports articles should have one source with significant coverage from the start, not "perhaps such a source exists". This article has no such source, and no such sources can be found online or are provided by you. Fram (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Demanding people find online sources is a violation of Wikipedia:Offline sources. I imagine there are very few newspapers from the Seychelles that publish all their content online, so it's unfair to demand online sources must be found for them (and is in fact a WP:BIAS against countries with lower levels of their newspaper coverage available online). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I don't believe they were demanding online sources; I believe they were saying that they could find no online sources, and no sources, online or offline, have been provided. If offline sources can be provided that result in the athlete meeting WP:GNG, then we should keep the article. BilledMammal (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's going to be a possible WP:CSB issue here. When I could write an article about a footballer who's never even played a professional game (with sources like this) but we can't source info for a player that's played in the World Cup qualifiers, it makes you think. Black Kite (talk)10:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should consider making local/entertainment coverage of athletes not count towards notability, but that is a different discussion. However, an under sourced microstub does not help with CSB, though it can hide the issue. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If offline sources can be provided that result in the athlete meeting WP:GNG Because it's really easy to just go to the Seychelles and pick up their newspapers which may well have coverage of him.... This isn't a problem just for this article, the result of those RFCs is that there is now large systemic bias against countries who don't have large online newspaper coverage and/or a large number of editors in that country able to find offline sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seychelles Nation is pretty much the only major newspaper in the Seychelles, it has an online archive dating from 2005, six years before Lablache's career started. It has not one single significant source on the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- it's pretty clear that I fundamentally disagree with you, and your very narrow, black and white deletionist views, that violate so many policies. Your persistent violating of WP:BLUDGEON and WP:POINTY doesn't make you right. I'm not sure how you have so much time to interrupt the project; you need to limit youself to a single response, rather than the endless game playing. Nfitz (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. This is a modern day athlete from a country where online sources are readily available. I did a search in Seychelles sources but found nothing outside of a brief mentions in match reports and those reports date from the start of his career in 2011. If someone has better luck, I'm more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced page that is supported by WP:FOOTY and WP:GNG, and who plays the highest level of football for an independent nation, an absolute joke that it's being considered to be deleted.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is he notable when he can't even get a single piece of significant coverage in the only national paper in his home country, let alone any other media outlet? Alvaldi (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How are you and I supposed to get access to Seychellois newspapers? It obviously exists, I just don't have access to it. And this push for GNG is pointless, we have tons of third party references and databases that exist to cover the clearly notable player, but arbitrary rules to ignore it to push a narrative. Notability requirements are racist.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seychelles Nation is the only major newspaper in the Seychelles, it has an online archive dating from 2005, six years before Lablache's career started. It has not one single significant source on him. Alvaldi (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NSPORTS may presume the person is likely notable, but that isn't the same as actually being notable. It's one of those rule of thumb things that don't always hold up. In this case, there aren't multiple, significant coverages in independent sources, which is the actual policy via GNG. Who knows, maybe next week that will change, maybe not, but for now, it doesn't pass our criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢20:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree fundamentally, the player is obviously notable for playing in the NATIONAL team of his independent nation. It doesn't take more than 1 brain cell to acknowledge that making the national team for the most popular sport in the world is inherently notable, but I'm sure Wikipedia editors will perform mental gymnastics for why that isn't the case.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And that's where you are fundamentally wrong. Just playing for any national team, especially by making just one or two short substitute appearances, doesn't mean one is notable. That's just not what notability means. Notability is actually achieved by being covered in press. That's not the case for this person because Seychelles is the sort of national team that is happy to be able to field eleven players, most of whom play this sport for fun in their spare time. There level of play is nowhere near meaningful.Tvx1 13:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played for their nation at the highest level in the most popular sport in the world. This is not someone who played a few mins in a professional league then disappeared. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)22:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you joking?? At the highest level of the most popular sport??? Seychelles have never come anywhere close to the highest level in international football. And if that isn’t bad enough, this player has appeared in barely two of their matches. One in a leg of the first round of qualifying for the African Nations Cup and another in a minor sub-continental cup. That’s nowhere near the highest level. Seychelles is the type of national team that is happy just to be able to field a full squad of players. Only very rarely one of them will be professional. Just playing for such a national team says little about ability, let alone notability. It’s clear you have no clue whatsoever what you’re talking about.Tvx1 20:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as international footballer. As Joseph says above, there is likely to be offline coverage - if anybody wants to pay for me to go to the Seychelles to research I'll be more than happy to... GiantSnowman12:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s not what Joseph said. They said there might be some offline coverage. The evidence however suggests that there likely isn’t any such significant coverage. The more I think about this, the more I am in disbelief that an actual Wikipedia administrator made a comment that demonstrates such an immense lack of sense of reality and of understanding of the word "notability".Tvx1 19:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either Procedural close to give time for the current issues regarding NSPORTS to be settled or Delete/Redirect/other alternative to deletion (but not "keep") due to the lack of SIGCOV, which is the fall back criteria until such time that NSPORTS/NFOOTY gets fixed. Those saying that playing at the international level for a team that has never even come close to qualifying for the World Cup - or even the Africa Cup of Nations - is the "highest level in the most popular sport in the world", are being a bit silly. However, it is also a typical example of WP:ITSIMPORTANT, based on personal opinion of what is "significant" or not (and, as the previous sentence demonstrates, hopefully, it is very much possible to make the opposite argument). Even if this part of NFOOTY hadn't been repealed (as a purely participation based criteria), meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept., and if the only thing we can say about a subject is "they played football for X and Y", then there's not much point having an article about them at this time. Whether it should be outright deleted or redirected to a list or something is another question. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the point of the SNG - the presumption of proof. And since it was stated in the RfC and closure that there won't be grandfathering, it is irrelevant in this case that there is a change of guideline. --SuperJew (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The presumption of proof is both A) rebuttable and B) not an indefinite delay (in the ideal case, the sources should have been found before beginning to write the article, not blindly assumed to exist), and given the recency of this player's career, and the fact that apparently the only national newspaper doesn't have anything about him, it is not particularly a strong one, due to this absence of coverage after a search (it's not like if it were a player from 50 years ago, where one might expect there to be some coverage in old sources which might indeed be only accessible offline). And if there is "no grandfathering", then those voting to !keep here should be doing the exact opposite, because there is no grandfathering and existing articles are not exempt from the requirements. WP:NRVE, and if no evidence of these sources which "surely exist" can be found, then sadly this looks more like a case of personal prejudice about what is notable and what is not (WP:ILIKEIT/WP:ITSIMPORTANT) than a rational analysis of the situation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There is no deadline bu which time we need to have all articles, an article being deleted is not a problem in the long run as it can be recreated if sources actually exist or appear. Not having this "article" right now isn't an issue. And Afd isn't cleanup, that's why the nomination is for deletion, not for cleanup. Anything else? Fram (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t mean articles are permanently safeguarded from deletion. And no-one is requesting cleanup. If a subject is just not suitable for an article here it just isn’t suitable.Tvx1 19:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very cleary the subject doesn’t meet WP:GNG. You cannot indefinitely claim that offline significant coverage exists, when there is no reasonable evidence it does.Tvx1 20:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG with dozens of references of his league (let alone national team) play in national coverage. The suggestion that the African Cup of Nations isn't at the highest level of play is offensive. Nfitz (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently one reference provided that mentions his play - and it is a passing mention. Can you provide WP:THREE of these dozens of references that count towards WP:GNG? BilledMammal (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article should be improved, not deleted. We don't judge an article on the current sourcing, but on what's available. Nfitz (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: Apologies, I was unclear. If you found significant coverage, I was asking you to provide WP:THREE examples, as I have been unable to find any. BilledMammal (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: care to elaborate? Your vote seems distinctly at odds with what is actually available (even the "dozens" of Google hits are not "dozens of references of his league play in national coverage", they are things like this non-entity, this translated non-entity, this empty source, ... Oh, and he didn't play at the African Cup of Nations, he played in a qualifier. Fram (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the quantity of sources, but the type of them. The references you refer to fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage and do not establish notability.Tvx1 13:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; merge/redirect to an appropriate list would be a good ATD but it does not appear that such a list currently exists. The presumption of notability offered by NFOOTY is very weak for many countries, even for internationals, and this is one of them. Per NSPORT, the guideline that ultimately needs to be met is GNG and this fails because we simply do not have any significant coverage, which we need in order to write an article (per WHYN). Without it, we have a two sentence directory/statistical listing stub that violates NOTDIR/NOTSTATS. It has been claimed that local offline sources may exist, but there is simply no reason to believe that to be true because there are many local sources available online covering the entire time period of his career to date, and no significant coverage has been found. wjematherplease leave a message...14:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not convinced that any of the sources presented constitute WP:SIGCOV. In the absence of sigcov, we cannot maintain an article about any topic; NSPORTS is no exception and it's high time that we stopped pretending it was one. ♠PMC♠ (talk)15:04, 16 March 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.