Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cashion London

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While there is an assertion of sources, no one has provided evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet the GNG leaving those arguing delete in a stronger position. No objection to a merger should someone ID a viable target and I'd be happy to provide the information under a redirect for it to be selectively merged. At the time, there is no target. Star Mississippi 00:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cashion London[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Contested WP:PROD. Subject meets WP:NFOOTY by virtue of 3 international appearances for Guyana 5 years ago, 1 of which being a non-FIFA match. Subject has just 1 non-professional club game played, and 0 matches in a fully professional league, which doesn't meet NFOOTY. Per WP:WINNEROUTCOMES, NFOOTY does not supersede WP:GNG, which subject comprehensively fails. The only articles I could find that even mention the subject are WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE and are here, here, here, and here. GauchoDude (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there is likely to be offline sources. Please pay for me to go to Guyana to research it. GiantSnowman 16:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because you assume them to exist doesn't, in fact, mean they do, which is not the argument we should be having per WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Unless someone can demonstrate GNG, this should result in delete. GauchoDude (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, just no. The idea that every player that has ever even just substituted for every micro-nation in the world is notable is laughable.Tvx1 18:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources providing substantial coverage have been identified. We build articles by using such sources, we do not build them by guessing such sources exist and then slapping together what little we can. Until we find actual substantial sources we should not have the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, however also Q4 in the FAQ atop WP:NSPORT shares the following:
    "Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources?
    A4: There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case..."
    It feels like we'd have sources sooner rather than later as the subject is relevant at a time when information is widely available versus the 1930's when print was much moreso the way. That said, "time" is fairly vague here. The article was created in 2018, is that enough "time"? GauchoDude (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the latter, the question is regarding the former. Can you share where the subject passes GNG? GauchoDude (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] Nfitz (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead Coach Jamaal Shabazz has invited USA-based schoolboys, winger Cash London, who plays for Cal Poly San Luis in California, goalkeeper Andrew Nestor, who plays for St. Francis in Brooklyn, New York and Anani Mohammed, who recently signed with Mexican Second Division team Atalante. The only mention of London is in a list with two other players - not WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, here comes the WP:BLUDGEON. Or is it WP:LASTWORD. It's immaterial though given NFOOTBALL is met, and GNG and SNG are given equal weight in WP:N. Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I really should make a WP:CRYBLUDGEON, like with WP:CRYBLP. Making a short, factual reply to note the deficiency of a source is not bludgeoning. If you don't want it to happen, then get actually acceptable sources, don't complain when your substandard coverage is pointed out as such. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I should really make a WP:TAGTEAM - do you all take shifts? Nfitz (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that's borderline WP:ASPERSIONS if not outright WP:NPA stuff. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep International footballer who represented his country at senior level. A dangerous precedent is going to be set if articles like this are deleted. As I've mentioned at a previous AfD, you could probably get rid of 1/3 of the 6 million+ articles on Wikipedia if you rely solely on GNG from online sources - a lot of countries will still have written news articles that don't make it online, and it is somewhat disrespectful and condescending to negate these simply because we do not have access to them. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This fallacy gets repeated endlessly in defence of content-deficient articles about obscure sportspeople, and not once has evidence of this mythical offline coverage ever been presented. The project needs to look at finding a valid ATD and cleaning up these "articles" if they wish to avoid deletion. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage provided; fails WP:GNG. If editors believe sources exist, then the onus is on them to find and provide them - otherwise, their !votes must be given little weight. Note that we are not limited to news sources; other reliable secondary sources are also suitable. BilledMammal (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NFOOTY does not supersede GNG, but it is parralel to it, per the first bullet point at WP:N. Thus, as this passes NFOOTY, keep. NemesisAT (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe correct? Maybe incorrect? It feels like there are conflicting areas all over Wikipedia, this being one of them. The FAQ at the very top of WP:NSPORT seems to disagree with this, specifically A1 and A2.
    "Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
    A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline...Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline..."
    "Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline?
    A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline..." GauchoDude (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I prefer to go with the guideline itself rather than the FAQ but I see how you could argue it either way. NemesisAT (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair, although it's on the guideline's page as an easy way to digest the huge amounts of text. That said, I don't know if there's a right answer? Here's a passage from WP:SNG that I think may specifically address this AfD's issue:
    "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." GauchoDude (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment international players notable (and the comments of a similar nature) are essentially variants of WP:ITSIMPORTANT or WP:ILIKEIT; and fall squarely foul of WP:NRVE, which is quite explicit that no matter what somebody has done or who they were, notability requires verifiable evidence. Now, if this were a player from half a century ago, a minimal amount of leeway could be understood (although, the article in that case would still not be fit for mainspace and should be draftified). However, given this is a recent player (apparently, still active, although their last games with the national team date from a few years ago), that Guyana isn't exactly the top country in football, and if indeed nothing can be found on them, then this would be a prime example of someone not meeting GNG, in which case the article would not meet the inclusion criteria and either deletion or an alternative should be sought. Holding off from giving a final view since I haven't looked for sources on the matter. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There are no significant sources in the article and a search, including in Guyanese sources, did not turn up a single significant coverage on the subject. All I could find are brief mentions that somebody with that name came in as a substitude in three matches for Guyana. This is not a historical player who played in the World Cup fifty years ago we are talking about, this is a modern day athlete originating from two english speaking countries whose extremely short career coincides with the golden age of internet coverage yet there is absolutely nothing of any significance written about him. I understand the reasoning with historical players, they are valid, but I could not in any good conscience make claims that this player had even the tiniest bit of notability. Alvaldi (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NFOOTY merely says that "Significant coverage is likely to exist" if the criteria are met, but significant coverage is not available here. Avilich (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough reliable sources are given and it fails GNG. Foodie Soul (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per NFOOTY, a player that has played in an international match between 2 FIFA-recognized countries is presumed notable. If this ends up being deleted, we might need to change that guideline and start deleting every international footballer with no online coverage. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles without any supporting significant coverage are not sustainable. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NFOOTY and GNG. Nfitz (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject does not pass GNG, unless there are some sources which have not been presented yet, and NFOOTY is not a criterion for automatic inclusion but merely an indication that "significant coverage is likely to exist" (despite you edit warring otherwise). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved discussion about editor behaviour
  • Note Nfitz has been edit warring (and was blocked for it) over changing the wording of the guideline from the new consensus to the old one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How has that got any relevance, User:RandomCanadian - not only disengenous as it is simply a restriction for one page, but also exaggerated given all are now blocked. I'd argue that the edit has no impact on this AFD - but I haven't actually checked what the difference I made was - I was simply returning the page to the previously frozen version. Surely WP:GRAVEDANCING is a greater sin, violating a pillar, and should receive a more serious block. Besides User:Wugapodes violated WP:INVOLVED. Nfitz (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sole purpose of the comment was to avoid any ambiguity about what the guideline was (is presumed to be notable and significant coverage is likely to exist essentially express the same idea, but the newer variant is more explicit what it is referring to). Given that it's now resolved with the new consensus implemented, I'm happy to strike my previous comment. Being unapologetic about the edit-warring isn't going to gain you my sympathy either, but that's off-topic here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no edit-warring, I don't think I've ever even edited that page in decades; and I was very careful not to violate 3RR. What would have been edit-warring is if I waited to the 24-hour mark and made it again, or I'd tried to make the same changes a week ago - trying to have spurious discussions pretending it was, in a completely irrelevant forum - clearly to try and gain some advantage, is both WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:STALKING, both of which are uncivil. Nfitz (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As you should well know, edit-warring can be disruptive even if you don't breach 3RR. Says so quite explicitly: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.. But all of that is off-topic and if you wish to have a chat about that we should continue on your talk page (after a good night's rest, I'd suggest). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a bright line for short-term issues. Otherwise edit-warring isn't something that happens in a few minutes. It's not like it wasn't back office. I again ask you to please not violate WP:CIVIL. Nfitz (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; merge/redirect to an appropriate list would be a good ATD but it does not appear that such a list currently exists. The presumption of notability offered by NFOOTY is very weak for many countries, even for internationals, and this is one of them. Per NSPORT, the guideline that ultimately needs to be met is GNG and this fails because we simply do not have any significant coverage, which we need in order to write an article (per WHYN). Without it, we have a one sentence directory/statistical listing stub that violates NOTDIR/NOTSTATS. It has been claimed that local offline sources may exist, but there is simply no reason to believe that to be true because there are many local sources available online covering the entire time period of his career to date, and no significant coverage has been found. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:29, 15 March 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cashion_London&oldid=1077936105"