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 keep. North America1000 05:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olufela Olomola[edit]

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

Duplicate of an unpublished article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kő_Cloch/Olufela_Olomola) Kő Cloch (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What makes that grounds for deletion? Just merge any additional content from your draft. Sussexpeople (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest having not played a Premier League game for the first team, at the very least both my article and the imposter article should stay always remain unpublished. Who are you to say that a duplicate article should be merged with my (original)? You're not impartial! Kő Cloch (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Striking sockpuppet vote. -- Dane2007 talk 14:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, his only first team match to date was in the League Cup. Sussexpeople (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
  1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
  2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
I've highlighted the either ... or bit, because it's the bit people sometimes forget. What it means is, there's no difference between the presumption of notability afforded by a subject-specific guideline and that offered by the general guideline.

I'd advise nominator to choose their words more carefully when suggesting another editor has created a duplicate of their sandbox draft. They haven't. They've created a basic stub about a newly notable subject and put it live. If they'd copypasted the draft without attribution, that'd need fixing, but they haven't. Perhaps nominator might consider taking any worthwhile, neutrally written, reliably sourced content from their draft and using it to improve the encyclopedia. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORT says "...standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." Eldumpo (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does, and so they should. It also says, higher up:
This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.
If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
Bolding original. What it doesn't say, is that even if the subject of an article at AfD is shown to meet the subject-specific guideline, that article must also, at the time of the AfD, demonstrate sufficient independent reliable non-trivial coverage to meet the GNG. If it did, there wouldn't be much point having subject-specific notability guidelines. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it basically does, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. We try very hard with the wording to make it clear that meeting NSPORTS isn't a notability pass, it is just a guide as to when it is likely to pass GNG which ultimately gives the notability. This is something that is clarified for editors ad nauseum on the talkpage of NSPORTS. That meeting it only gives a short term reprieve to find sources but they do eventually have to be found and that someone can put a "call" in eventually to proove the article does. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think anyone's suggesting that passing NSPORT means an article must be kept, but "eventually" is a judgment call: there's long-time consensus at footballer AfDs, in theory and in practice, that where an article has existed for some time for a player who passes NFOOTY but no evidence is produced for their receiving the sort of coverage that would pass GNG, the article is deleted. This AfD was launched within 20 hours of its creation: its creator is inexperienced and probably doesn't know what the fuss is about, and the editor who has done some research on the subject won't share it because someone else created the page first... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about GiantSnowman? If Wikipedia didn't have policies that prevent articles from meeting a certain criteria for submission then we would not be having this debate right now - however on the other hand there would be far too many stub articles or less notable articles available on Wikipedia and that would make for huge task to sort it out. On the contrary, why on earth are you suggesting that there'sno reason to delete the duplicate article. I don't care whether somebody copied and pasted it or not, the point is it was my work and due to in eligibility of the article given that Olomola has not yet played a senior game in the Premier League. This is why I did not publish the article, as I knew it would be under a lot of scrutiny because of this. It's safe to say that you can't rely on others to be sensitive to this issue and understand that the second Olomola article was created without having consulted me first. That is why I see no right for either GiantSnowman or Struway2 to comment on the issue having not even noticed my comment what is the current stance on Premier League 2? Why do you choose to ignore my requests for help but will happily intervene with an issue that doesn't concern you? Get rid of the second article as it is no more eligible than my original. I am LIVID!!

Kő Cloch (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 14:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My article created in August 2016 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fela_Olomola) I have already added more detail to the player's biography and was waiting for the opportunity to publish my work ... then I discover that another user can slyly get away with making their own even though it was no more eligible than mine!

And what of this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kő_Cloch/Antonio_Martínez) I take it I am expected to sit back and wait for another individual to pave over my work and receive credit for it!?

Hi @Kő Cloch:, please read up on WP:OWNERSHIP, it really doesn't matter who starts and article. If you feel so passionately about this article you can still add content to it or add it to your watchlist. Remember that Deletion is not cleanup. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:33, 4 November 2016 (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.
More