Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Abba Bichi: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:55, 13 January 2021 editEyebeller (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers4,955 edits →Abba Bichi: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Revision as of 00:58, 13 January 2021 edit undoEyebeller (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers4,955 edits →Abba Bichi: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit →
Line 15: Line 15:
::::::::Thanks for the lesson. No one said it was. But reliable sources don't publish PR gibberish. Being published somewhere != reliable source. So which of these sources are reliable and independent? ] 00:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC) ::::::::Thanks for the lesson. No one said it was. But reliable sources don't publish PR gibberish. Being published somewhere != reliable source. So which of these sources are reliable and independent? ] 00:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::The sources are better here than they are at ] which has duplicate sources and which you marked as reviewed. ] 00:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC) :::::::::The sources are better here than they are at ] which has duplicate sources and which you marked as reviewed. ] 00:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Multiple of them are and I don't see why this should be deleted when other articles with worse sources were marked as reviewed by yourself. ] 00:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:58, 13 January 2021

Abba Bichi

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

non notable youth footy player, fails WP:NFOOTY and fails all other notability criteria afaict. these sources are dubious, poorly written pieces as well. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

How exactly do they meet nfooty and what coverage is there, Eyebeller? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Meeting WP:NFOOTY is not required as that is primary additional criteria that indicate notability. Coverage is in the provided sources. Eyebeller 00:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Did you even read them? I have serious doubts about your judgement in this case, if you are claiming that those poorly written pieces are somehow in depth, reliable coverage. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I did read them. Did you? Eyebeller 00:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
We can go back and forth on this but which of these is indepth and reliable? Is it the guardian.ng puff piece with no byline? Or the stats listing? Or the puff pieces sourced to blatant non-rs that didn't even bother to spell check? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Being well-written is not a requirement for WP:GNG. Eyebeller 00:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the lesson. No one said it was. But reliable sources don't publish PR gibberish. Being published somewhere != reliable source. So which of these sources are reliable and independent? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The sources are better here than they are at Draft:Michael C. Grayson which has duplicate sources and which you marked as reviewed. Eyebeller 00:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Multiple of them are and I don't see why this should be deleted when other articles with worse sources were marked as reviewed by yourself. Eyebeller 00:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Categories: