This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Praxidicae (talk | contribs) at 00:52, 13 January 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:52, 13 January 2021 by Praxidicae (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Abba Bichi
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- 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)
- Keep - significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Eyebeller 00:37, 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)
- Being well-written is not a requirement for WP:GNG. Eyebeller 00:50, 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)
- I did read them. Did you? Eyebeller 00:48, 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)
- 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)
- How exactly do they meet nfooty and what coverage is there, Eyebeller? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)