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 with no prejudice to re-creation when he meets WP:NFOOTY. JohnCD (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hervin Ongenda[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had received significant coverage. However, the coverage he has received is routine sports journalism, which is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or userfy as WP:TOOSOON. Has not left the bench against a pro team yet. But if [this] is correct, it's a matter of time.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I withdrew the PROD earlier. I fail to see which part of the WP:GNG has not been met. Yes, you might call it "routine sports journalism" but the newspaper articles are nonetheless reliable, secondary, independent and provide significant coverage. Hence I can't see how this fails GNG? — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is secondary coverage, but its substantiveness is in question. Sources don't strike me as major media, though that's not my area. That said, thanks for acknowledging your role in removing the PROD.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was probably created too soon but has since received significant coverage in reliable sources:

Article in French so someone will have to tell me what it says but it's obviously about the subject.
Article from Metro.
Article from Talksport.
Article from the International Business Times.

GNG aside, is there much point incubating something for days/weeks? Stalwart111 00:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The footmercato article is about his hopes to sign a professional contract with PSG or another strong team. Basically like the other articles. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely not a matter of days or even weeks, but multiple months at least. His club PSG have three games to play and are having trouble closing the national title, so Ongenda is unlikely to see play in the top league. After that, he'll have to sign a pro contract, and then it will be somewhere in the next season, at best, until he plays. I would say 6 months minimum before he has a chance to meet the WP:NFOOTY part. So, incubate makes sense to me.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that seems logical enough, and I can accept he doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY at the moment. But I'm still inclined to think he passes WP:GNG. Don't you think? Stalwart111 14:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNG, this depends on the quality of the sources. I'd be wary of Metro as a source, and the two sentences don't add up to much. International Business Times has a pretty large readership, but as a sports source it's more dubious. The websites, I don't know. Hopefully another editor can advise.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, true, but there's also the ones already in the article like the Daily Mail. They might not be the New York Times but I think they probably get there. Anyway, as you say, let's see what others have to say. Cheers, Stalwart111 22:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL, but WP:GNG is trickier. I'd say the sourcing was WP:ROUTINE and may even fall into WP:BLP1E territory (i.e. signing for a club). Giant Snowman 19:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's where my hesitation was. I couldn't see that he had actually signed, more that clubs were interested in him. If it were just routine coverage of a signing ceremony... but they seem to be about his skills and record and the fact that big clubs have subsequently expressed interest in him. Would you still say that falls under WP:ROUTINE? Stalwart111 23:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 06:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Has yet to play in a fully professional league and the only coverage is of "transfer gossip" rumour - which pushes it firmly into WP:CRYSTAL territory. Funny ^Pika! 17:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and FunnyPika, no meeting of NFOOTBALL and the media coverage seems to be routine, missing GNG. C 679 05:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Has played no higher than the Championnat de France amateur. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:22, 25 May 2013 (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.