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 no consensus. The discussion has come to no consensus, but I would say that GiantSnoman has made a better argument that makes this discussion sway toward delete. But not enough to push the button. v/r - T P 03:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mahathir Azeman[edit]

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

PROD contested by anon for no reason (why am I surprised). Concern was that article fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG and that case still stands today. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the subject does not appear to pass NFOOTY yet, there is a case for GNG. The following sources provide substantial indepth coverage of the player, containing interviews and comment beyond routine match reports:

Mahathir's star will only get brighter
Football: A toast to Mahathir Azeman
Mahathir joins Boavista
TNP SSS Profile- Mahathir's hard work pays off
Boavista hand Mahathir one-year deal
17-year-old Mahathir Azeman to train with Boavista
The Success Story of Mahathir Azeman - contains a number of screenshots of substantial newspaper articles about the player, not all of them covered above.

Unlike almost all other young players who have not played senior international football or in an FPL, there genuinely does seem to be a significant amount of coverage about this player in Singapore media (and what I have noted above is only in English), beyond mentioning his name in match reports or briefly noting transfers. Would be interested in @GiantSnowman: and @ArsenalFan700: views on the level of coverage noted above. Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A case of WP:BLP1E - the media always get themselves in a brief frenzy whenever a young foreign player signs for a 'big' club, see for example Jack Harper who is a young Scot playing for Real Madrid. Giant Snowman 11:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the articles discuss more than just the transfer. Would suggest re-reading them in detail please, the four minutes between my post and yours suggests you did not. Fenix down (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for ABFing and assuming I didn't read the articles. Are any of them more than "look at this young Singaporean who plays for a Brazilian club"? No, not really. BLP1E, as I have already said. Giant Snowman 14:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er... I didn't assume you hadn't read them, just that as there are several thousand word of text, I questioned whether four minutes was sufficient time to read them in detail and form a solid conclusion, so no need to get snippy. You kind of support my suggestion by failing to realise that the transfer was to the Brazilian club not the Portuguese one, something that is noted repeatedly in those elements of the sources I noted above that deal with the transfer.

More over, the first source, a reasonably extensive article on the player himself, does not mention this transfer at all. The second source, though related to the transfer, places it in a wider context of Singapore / Brazil relations and notes the player being introduced to senior politicans and diplomats. The third source is another in-depth article on the player and does not mention the transfer at all. The final link contains a readable screenshot (the second one) of a full page article on the player again interviewing him and outlining his career to date, without mentioning his transfer whatsoever.

Now, there may not be enough there to satisfy GNG for you, and that is fine, but to dismiss the sources as BLP1E is demonstrably incorrect, this is clearly a young player who has attracted a reasonable level of in-depth attention, a level which does not necessarily guarantee GNG, but is certainly worth discussion. Fenix down (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A slip of the finger, apologies - I'm actually playing as Boavista on this video game at the moment, will have to resign in shame after this ;)

Let me be a bit clearer then - are there enough sources which cover this individual in great detail, apart from the fact "ooh it's a Singaporean in Brazil"? I don't think there are, and that's why I still think it fails GNG and BLP1E. Giant Snowman 15:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! Personally, not sure that there is a need for "great detail", that's not mentioned anywhere in GNG. There are above a number of sources some of which deal (in detail and including significant interviews with the player) with the transfer, but also a number that deal with his wider footballing achievements without discussing the transfer in any way. These sources are significant in their coverage in terms of their length and with the player very young one would not expect a huge number of interview and I would argue would generally expect less than is available here. I don't think there is any grounds to doubt their reliability nor that they are independant of the article subject. It's a grey area when dealing with young players as when they have never played in an FPL it is easy to dismiss their case, but I'm not so sure here. Fenix down (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"great detail" (my words) = "significant coverage" (GNG's wording). GNG requires there to be in-depth coverage, or to quote again, "addresses the topic directly and in detail." Giant Snowman 16:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is scope to say that, as I have said above, there are a number of significant interviews carried out with the player aside from the significant coverage his transfer garnered. Whereas in 99% of occasions I would agree with you wholeheartedly about non intl / FPL youth players, here I think there is scope for discussion. Fenix down (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ya... I still need to look at those. Will be back soon. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fenix down has demonstrated that the subject passes the general notability guideline, as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources even if we disregard the routine transfer news. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Doesn't meet NFOOTY and the articles all seem to be about his signing. For right now it looks like BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON, but he may become notable shortly.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - though as has been noted repeatedly above, there are articles of significant length that discuss his career without mentioning the transfer at all. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per Fenix post above, player has received significant non-routine coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. TonyStarks (talk) 19:57, 25 October 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have gone over each of the citations provided in the article as it currently stands (see timestamp below for specific time). The first two citations are to links that do not mention the subject of the article anywhere (he may be mentioned somewhere on those web sites, but the links themselves show no evidence of this). The thirds citation is to an article in which his name is mentioned only in passing (i.e., he is not the subject of the article and his mention there is too brief to qualify as evidence of notability). In the fourth citation, again the subject is not mentioned anywhere. The fifth citation actually has a named author— "Shamir Osman"— though the link is to a web page (on "AsiaOne.com") that itself is quoting another web site called "The New Paper" of which Osman is a "user" (not a writer or editor) and which does not give any indication of editorial oversight (which I suspect it does not have)— in my opinion, this means it cannot confer standalone notability. The next citation is only to a list of names (not viable for establishing notability). The seventh citation is again a link to The New Paper, and this time does not give the name of any author, making it further suspect. Given that none of these seven citations appears by itself to confer notability, together they cannot do this either. It seems to me that if the subject of this article were truly notable, finding at least one unambiguously reliable third-party source to show this should not be so difficult. KDS4444^Talk 14:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't about what sources are presently in the article, but what kind of coverage could be found. Would you do an equally in-depth analysis of the sources that Fenix down has linked in this discussion? Mentoz86 (talk) 15:39, 12 November 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.