Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Perchet

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. There is a clear consensus, with some dissension, among participating editors that the article as it exists today lacks sourcing to establish notability. There was extensive disagreement about what our notability guidelines say should be done in a situation, like this, about what our requirement about WP:SIGCOV means and what to do where there is reasonable belief that sources exists but which are not yet present in the article.
As written, the guidelines say that if there is not at least 1 SIGCOV source present, the article should be deleted but if 1 such source exists that may or may not be sufficient to establish notability. While some participating editors believe there was not any source that provides SIGCOV, this did not ultimately have consensus.
Instead the focus ultimately hinges on that second question of how much time is appropriate to wait if there is a reasonable belief that other sources exist. As this discussion has existed for more than a month (having been closed and then reopened during that time) it feels like a reasonable amount of time has been offered during this discussion to find a source and this hasn't yet happened so delete currently has consensus.
But it also feels like more time may result in additional found coverage that establishes notability. As such if any editor wishes to have this restored in their userspace, this request should be granted (if asked I will do it myself). And if an editor finds an additional source that meets SIGCOV, the article can be restored to mainspace (no DRV or other approval necessary). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Perchet

[edit]

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

Gary Perchet (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)

Article about former footballer who briefly played professionally in Ligue 2 but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The best coverage I could find was a Q&A interview with his former club here; which is not independent coverage and doesn't count towards WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That first article includes one sentence (about retirement) that isn't a quote from the subject; so it's not secondary coverage. The second article has a mix of quotes and secondary coverage, but it's essentially a match report on how well he performed in a single cup match and the potential that he could move to another club. I can't see how that is SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first article is secondary coverage, it's not from the subject himself and is not framed as an interview. The second article is also secondary and is significant. You're being pedantic to push your agenda. Ortizesp (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYNEWS says that interviews and reports of interviews with the subject of an article are primary sources. These interviews can be used in the article, but don't count towards notability. The article contains the following text that is not a direct quote from the subject: À même pas 31 ans (il les aura en novembre), Gary Perchet a décidé de tirer sa révérence. «...» Au moment de conclure ces cinq années au FCMB, à qui il «...», le feu follet du flanc gauche tire un bilan contrasté : «...» Des supporters qu’il cite encore pour le match qui l’a le plus marqué : «...» Do you really think what's left counts toward notability? Jogurney (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • PRIMARYNEWS is only an essay. More importantly WP:PRIMARY itself, which is a policy, states (in footnote d, that interviews are primary sources - depending on context. I'm not opining on the context here though, at this time. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PRIMARY says primary sources are "original materials that are close to an event;" what is closer to Perchet's retirement than quotes from him about it? I can't imagine a context where an interview featuring such quotes is not a primary source. Jogurney (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opining - I'm simply noting that there are cased, based on context, where interviews are not considered primary. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That "context" is when an interview is accompanied by significant secondary independent discussion of the interviewee by the author. That is not the case here. JoelleJay (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortizesp I agree with Jogurney that he first source doesn't contain any significant secondary coverage but the second source is half-decent and has some indepth discussion about him in my opinion. However, GNG requires multiple sources of SIGCOV from multiple publications (both cited sources kom from Le Journal). If you can find 1-2 SIGCOV I'm happy to reconsider but as of now I'm inclined to !vote Delete. Alvaldi (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the first source is not good enough, the second one is OK but not enough on its own. GiantSnowman 18:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Single source in article is stats, sources above a very brief mentions that fails SIGCOV. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // ≠Timothy :: talk  08:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What the subject says is never, ever independent or secondary coverage of themselves, and what little commentary is from the author is far too insignificant for GNG. The second source is from the same outlet as the first, so even if both were SIGCOV the subject would still not meet GNG. As it happens, the second source, while better, is also lacking in secondary SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Ortizesp. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been trying to do a decent BEFORE before opining, but I've been stymied for days because my Archive.org search keeps failing ... and the sight is deadly slow right now. Please don't close as delete for the moment - I'll try again tomorrow. Nfitz (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
archive.org is still being flakey - so I'll move on. Nfitz (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We seem to have consensus that there's one GNG source. This means the WP:SPORTBASIC of W:N is met, as it notes that this does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. I am concerned that it's hard to search French media from the decade before last - and we should be looking at a (presumably paywalled) archive. But I'm not aware of one. Any suggestions? Nfitz (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot to mention - here's a very brief piece here. Too short, but at least it's not from the same publication. Nfitz (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is consensus that there's one piece of SIGCOV. There is consensus that one of the 2 lejsl.com articles is better than the other (which makes sense because 1 of them contains only a few words that are not from the subject). There is only one editor that argued there is SIGCOV, and that person has no response to the question I posed about the usefulness of quotes from the subject in findging SIGCOV. You appear to have agreed that GNG isn't met, but that we ought to presume paywalled and offline sources exist that represent SIGCOV. I think that's an assumption best left to highly unusual situations (not for someone who was a squad member/substitute for two Ligue 2 seasons). Jogurney (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the one is GNG; and thus deletion isn't necessary at this time. I'm not saying we should presume that there is paywalled and offline sources. But that we do meet NSPORT if not GNG, so there's no immediate need for deletion, and we can apply WP:NORUSH and review this without prejudice when such archives become readily available. Nfitz (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORTS says: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. One source can't meet that. SPORTBASIC says editors shouldn't create articles without at least one source that is plausible SIGCOV; it doesn't say we keep old articles based on a single source that is plausible SIGCOV (and I don't concede that the lejsl.com source is plausible SIGCOV). Jogurney (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple published non-trivial secondary sources is the goal we should strive to achieve. However the relevant part of NSPORT is WP:SPORTCRIT which says a the bottom that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject; this is the minimum criteria for an article to exist - and it's been met. If we had full access to extensive contemporary media from the place/language of the subject, then yes, two sources are needed. But until access comes more available for many of the foreign-language media sources, then we apply WP:NORUSH and as NSPORT notes that in this scenario that it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. Nfitz (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If the keep !voters believe the single lejsl.com interview is good enough under SPORTCRIT, I think they are mistaken. WP:NSPORTS2022 was clear in requiring that all sportsperson biographies meet WP:GNG; which requires multiple sources of SIGCOV. Also, a NORUSH argument is far from compelling for an article that was created over 13 years ago (in November 2009!). Jogurney (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A NORUSH argument would be less compelling 13 years ago, when there was more chance of finding contemporary supporting material on-line. It would certainly be a poor argument for an EFL Championship player currently on the pitch. If you object to the use of a single reference, can you please tell me for which situation "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject" would be applicable? Nfitz (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting that the proposal to require sportspeople to meet GNG at AFD was rejected - Proposal 1 - no consensus: This was the second-most participated-in proposal with over 70 participants. Editors debated whether NSPORTS should state that sports biographies "must" satisfy the GNG if challenged at AFD. While there is a slight majority for the proposal, discussions are not a vote, and we need to consider the arguments made and whether a sufficient level of agreement was reached. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's been my understanding for many years that the GNG must be met, I opened a discussion at WT:NSPORTS to make sure I've not been wrong the whole time. As I suspected, the GNG does indeed need to be met. Jogurney (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, GNG must be met "eventually" (What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources? There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find.) – but its not necessarily required at this AFD, as that proposal was explicitly rejected. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How much more than 13 years is needed? Jogurney (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    People haven't been searching for 13 years, people have been searching for just over one week. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even under the assumption that nobody understood this article needed SIGCOV to remain in mainspace until NSPORTS2022 was concluded, there's been more than a year in which SIGCOV should have been found and added. If I felt this article passed SPORTCRIT, I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion on the grounds that someone may make it GNG-compliant in the coming months/years. I understand there are tens of thousands of non-compliant football biographies so we can't address all of them at once, and I've been doing my part to improve the ones that can be improved. However, there's no reason to keep ones that cannot be improved like this in mainspace. It can always be brought back if someone finds French-language media archives that contain significant coverage of this marginal footballer. Jogurney (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jogurney, in your engagement of the community at WT:NSPORTS you did not ask the question of when does SPORTCRIT apply, and also the lack of access to foreign-language media from the time-period in question! I assume these oversights were in good faith. Nfitz (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion shouldn't be about me, but I'll just say I'm rather disappointed with your insinuation. I've participated in hundreds (likely thousands) of sports biography AfDs over the past decade, and I stand by my record. Jogurney (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything insinuating about what I said. I even made clear that I assumed you were acting in good faith, so as you could not possibly mistakenly make insinuations! However, to make absolutely sure there's no misinterpretation of what I said, I've edited the previous comment to remove anything that wasn't entirely germane to the point. But instead of making this about you, or me, please just answer the question. Can you give an example, User:Jogurney of when that section might apply; as that may enlighten us on when not to apply it! Nfitz (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've understood it as allowing an editor to create a new sports biography if they have at least one piece of SIGCOV that plausibly contributes to passing the GNG. However, any sports biography ultimately needs to meet the GNG in order to stay in mainspace. Here, we have a 13+ year old article that hasn't been improved in the year since NSPORTS2022 (when everyone involved in editing it, or wanting to keep it in mainspace, was put on notice that the GNG needed to be met). It simply doesn't hold that this article should be kept in mainspace if everyone agreed that it had one piece of SIGCOV that plausibly contributed to passing GNG (which plenty of participants here don't believe it does). Jogurney (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sportscrit #5 doesn't permit us to keep articles when they have only one example of WP:SIGCOV; instead, it requires us to delete if they have none. It is very clear on this, with the line Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability.
Those claiming that they need more time to find sources aren't giving any information on how long they need, and there is no reason the article needs to exist in article space while they are searching; if they find sources, it is easy to recover the article, and if they don't it is a waste of time to keep it in article space where it will require us to hold another AfD to delete - see the example of WP:Articles for deletion/John Charlton (footballer) (3rd nomination), where it took three AfD's to delete the article, with it initially being kept because editors claimed that there must be sources.
Finally, I am not convinced that the one source editors are arguing is SIGCOV is SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly discussion of whether the one reference in question is GNG or not. But in terms of SPORTCRIT 5, can you give an example, User:BilledMammal of when that section might apply; as that might enlighten us on when not to apply it. Nfitz (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no circumstances where it should be applied to keep an article that fails GNG. I was the editor who added that line, and I can definitively tell you that the intent was only to provide general guidance, to encourage editors seeking to keep or create an article on a sportsperson to keep looking if they found one source containing SIGCOV - while also being clear that the article should not be kept or created on the basis of that aspect of SPORTSCRIT unless additional sources containing SIGCOV could be found.
Could you enlighten us as to how long you want to keep this article before you would concede that such sources can't be found and the article should be deleted? BilledMammal (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An WP:OWN! I was part of that discussion, and that's certainly not what I thought it meant. How long? I've said this - when French archives of material from that time period become accessible. What's the rush? What's the damage? It's not like there's actual questions of their existence, or mistaken identity that we sometimes see with century-old players. Nfitz (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not WP:OWN for an editor to describe their intent when adding content. And you weren't part of that discussion; the discussion about adding that wording was minimal, and was focused on objecting to the close of NSPORTS2022 itself, rather than on the wording I was adding. it can be seen here.
when French archives of material from that time period become accessible When will that be, or are you proposing keeping this article indefinitely despite failing GNG? BilledMammal (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the discussion - that was just the implementation. The discussion is at WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Sports_notability#Subproposal_5, where there was a 16,000 word discussion, where I contributed 10 times. As you notice from the close, it was clear that the one source doesn't have to be their from inception. But you maintain that both sources do? I think you, User:BilledMammal, need to read those 16,000 words and the close statement again.
Huge amounts of material have become available in the last two decades during the period this article has already been around. I doubt we'd have to wait any longer than that period to have enough material available to be definitively sure, one way or another - so relatively quickly. I see no harm; there's no questions about accuracy or verifiability. And as you are aware, we already have evidence that they are likely notable. Nfitz (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is based on the specific wording. That wasn’t discussed in the NSPORTS2022 RFC.
I doubt we'd have to wait any longer than that period So another two decades? You think it is reasonable to keep this article for another 20 years without any evidence that it meets GNG? That’s ridiculous. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else is wouldn't make sense given the closing statement. But hang on - you say my argument is based on the wording of the policy that was solely an implementation of the discussion? Yes. That's the point. The article is already in it's second decade, without anyone having concerns about there being zero GNG sources. What's the rush? Where's the harm? Nfitz (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; neither the discussion nor the close supported keeping articles on the basis of having a single SIGCOV source.
And having articles on non-notable topics causes harm, for many reasons that I have gone into elsewhere, including in discussions with you, but aren’t relevant here; the existence of WP:N presupposes harm. If you believe there is no harm, I suggest you go to that page and suggest that our requirements are weakened or removed. BilledMammal (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, BM, you are correct - the close didn't support keeping articles on the basis of a single SIGCOV - it actually suggested the possibility of doing that with ZERO SIGCOV - but you do know that. I've no idea what has been discussed previously - can you explain here, or at least link to this discussion of how harm is caused when we know that "there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article"? Also, can you tell us how much harm this article existing for about the last 15 years has caused? Nfitz (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are very mistaken about the close; it doesn't support keeping any articles, what it does do is forbid keeping articles where no sigcov can be identified.
If I have time I'll look for our past discussions, but for now I'll just say that it is no longer true that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article; even assuming that you have managed to find one example of SIGCOV, and I dispute that, the fact that you have been unable to find a second despite an extensive search now makes it likely that such sources do not exist. BilledMammal (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SPORTCRIT 5 (and the pre-RfC second sentence of NSPORT) is for article creation and persistence in mainspace when not challenged. It allows someone to create an article with one SIGCOV SIRS without having to worry about it being speedied, and patrolling editors will presume it doesn't need to be investigated for notability further and so generally will just pass over it instead of taking it to AfD/draftifying. It is also my interpretation that the presumptions afforded by the rest of NSPORT can only be applied after #5 is met, although those presumptions are still rebuttable. JoelleJay (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the closure statement suggests that even with ZERO SIGCOVs it can avoid immediate deletion. So what's the one really all about? At the same time, we keep seeing brand new articles at AFD - sometimes with the claim that there's only one GNG! I feel your interpretations are wrong; though at least you are not attempting to mislead us. Nfitz (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as N/C, which I still don't see but following User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Perchet I am reopening to allow for further discussion. Additional days here would be far more productive than DRV and a potential return here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the original "no consensus" close seems fair for now given the current disagreements over how to interpret policy. Garuda3 (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only editors alleging a "disagreement" in interpretation are those who opposed the NSPORTS2022 proposals in general. That there are a handful of editors who outright reject the consensus and continually seek ways to undermine it does not mean there isn't a strong consensus that a) GNG must be met by all subjects, b) all subjects must have a citation to SIGCOV in their articles to be compliant with NSPORT, and c) presumption of further coverage must enjoy a clear consensus for an article to be retained with only one piece of SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would a disagreement over policy be a reason to keep? Either the article meets our notability guidelines, or it doesn't. The previous !keep voters have suggested there is a single piece of SIGCOV (others don't think there is). Regardless, policy is clear that multiple sources of SIGCOV are needed to satisfy NSPORTS/GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There should be no confusion about how to interpret NSPORTS/SPORTCRIT/NSPORTS2022. NSPORTS requires multiple sources to establish notability: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Consistent with NSPORTS2022, SPORTCRIT requires at least one source in the article, but a single source doesn't establish notability: Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. In short, every sports biography must include at least one source of SIGCOV (or face immediate draftification/deletion/redirection), but multiple sources of SIGCOV are required to establish notability (which don't need to be in the article, but do need to be accessible). Jogurney (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The close at WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Sports_notability#Subproposal_5 where the quoted text of SPORTCRIT was approved, clearly says that even the one source isn't immediately necessary. Therefore the claim that there must immediately be two sources is false. Perhaps it would be better to spend our time, identifying and discussing how we can access French archives (perhaps through Wikipedia Library) rather than trying to delete articles for people whore are likely notable! Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading the close. It says the one source of SIGCOV in the article requirement doesn't apply from inception. Articles like this one that have been around for 13 years can't possibly be protected by that language since we are 13 years after inception! Jogurney (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify further, that language was removed because editors were concerned it would result in the deletion of articles even if sources were found later, as they wouldn't have been "present from inception". It wasn't removed to permit articles to be created without such sources, nor was it removed to permit articles to be kept without such sources. BilledMammal (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the current text. I'm not aware that the text had been changed in abeyance of the close. That in itself concerns me. I don't see that I am misreading the close - there's no discussion of timeframe there. Even in the discussion itself, there's talk about how this is to protect against RECENTISM.
Once again - what French archives exist, and how can we go about accessing them? Nfitz (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Oppose I'm sure this isn't what the OP intended, but as written this would allow the deletion of articles on subjects which clearly pass the GNG, just because the article didn't include evidence of that when it was created and Oppose As this would allow the deletion of articles even if they pass GNG just because they were created in a specific way, among others. These are the problems that Wugapodes was referring to, and the reason the proposal was adjusted - not to permit us to keep or create articles without any SIGCOV, which would make the requirement meaningless.
Once again - what French archives exist, and how can we go about accessing them? Shouldn't you at least know where the coverage might exist before insisting that it must exist? BilledMammal (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even from what's available, we know they are likely notable. I'm not sure why the question is being dodged - I'd assume that checking such archives is part of BEFORE for anyone editing in the topic area of French people. Nfitz (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BEFORE does not say anything about attempting to access offline or unavailable sources, that would be ridiculous. JoelleJay (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the second source presented by Ortizesp is certainly WP:GNG-appropriate as it includes secondary coverage and covers both a match and rumors of a potential transfer. Other brief reference, such as the first one presented by Ortizesp and the one brought up by NFitz are probably too short to qualify as WP:SIGCOV, but both contain non-trivial coverage of the subject. All of thi coverage can still be considered a pass of WP:NBIO, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 17:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Routine material does not contribute to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which one of those to you consider routine? Some editors have really exaggerated what "routine" means - with the example given in the guideline, being a box score. No one has raised the issue of ROUTINE previously in this discussion. Nfitz (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been explained to you multiple times, transactional news and match recaps/previews are routine. From NSPORT: must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. From ROUTINE: Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. JoelleJay (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ROUTINE is part of the events notability guideline. This article is a biography and so ROUTINE doesn’t apply here. Garuda3 (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NSPORT links directly to ROUTINE to explain what constitutes routine coverage for biographies. If you have a problem with guidelines citing other guidelines, take it up at VPP. JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidently a mistake in NSPORT then. Garuda3 (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because ROUTINE is in the guideline for events doesn't mean its definition of routine coverage can't be used for non-events. And anyway ROUTINE derives directly from NOTNEWS, which applies to all articles and includes For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ongoing consensus is that sports-notability criteria are incremental to GNG which does not appear met here. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per all editors involved. I agreed with them. CastJared (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2023 (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/Gary_Perchet&oldid=1156637702"