Abdoulaye Ndiaye (footballer): Fails WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 09:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Senegal .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I found [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] ,  and [46] , among many many more French sources. Clearly signicaint figure in Senegalese and French league football with young ongoing career in international football as well as fully pro French Ligue 2 , both o which have a lot of media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 19:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly passes GNG per above. Proper before wasn't done.-- Ortizesp ( talk ) 19:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. The first Wiwsport source is a copy and paste of the corsematin.com article. Tikgalsen.com is a blog and sc-bastia.corsica is SC Bastia's official website. Dougal18 ( talk ) 11:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Tikgalsen.com source is originally from [47] , which is not a blog. Even though  the first Wiwsport source is a copy and paste of the corsematin.com article the corsematin.com article is valid. Besides those three sources, there is also [48] , [49] , [50] , [51] , and [52] among many more French sources. Clearly topic of interest with an ongoing career in international football as well as fully pro French Ligue 2 , both of which have a lot of media coverage. ' Article needs improvement, not deletion .  Regarding most of the consistent pro-deletion users, I dont understand why they spend all their effort deleting other peoples honest hard work instead of improving them, especially most pro-deletion users I have encountered who have a double standard where they either support Wikipedia:SNG where the article doesn't need to meet WP:GNG or have sometimes created articles of people with less coverage than this one.  (I support article creation, but many pro-deletion users double standard is very frustrating).  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete BLP, Fails GNG and BIO.  No sources in article are IS RS SIGCOV.  BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Sources above are promo and mentions, nothing with SIGCOV from IS RS sources.  None of the above is IS RS with SIGCOV, just ROUTINE sports stories, promo, etc.  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 to avoid abuse per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 14:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Wiwsport is very good.  I'm not sure if any of the others are good enough.  This is a borderline case imho.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That would be the best source, but I think the above is an interview with the subject with some background commentary.  Doesn't seem to be an IS and uses promo language.  // Timothy :: talk 16:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Wiwsport entry is actually this Corse-Matin article.  It certainly counts towards the GNG, but I'll have to see if there is anything else.  Jogurney ( talk ) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Responding to TimothyBlue, Firstly , your most recent article (made in March 2023) is about a current Ukrainian photographer whose birth date is unknown and basically only has primary sources online...  (which I am fine with, but trying to delete others articles with much more sources of any kind while creating those kinds of articles truly boggles the mind, the double standard makes no sense whatsoever ).  Secondly , the sources do have secondary coverage, Thirdly , every deletion editor's entire arguments is basically repeating "everything is routine" (clearly not true) or "deletion because the "law" said so" ( Wikipedia:Wikilawyering ) without thinking about why the "law" exists in the first place...  the reason the secondary source "law" exists is objectivity, which this article does anyways... if a fair amount of independent, reliable sources, primary or secondary, can produce an objective factual article about a clear topic of interest , there's no logical reason it should be deleted at all (Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a "yes" to Wikipedia:The one question ).  Lastly , Ndiaye has an ongoing career as a important figure in a team in the French Ligue 2 , a league that receives lots of media coverage .  Article needs improvement, not deletion .  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  21:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think there is just enough independent and in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG .  This Corse-Matin article contains a good amount of independent reporting aside from the Q&A interview.  Similarly, this Africanews article contains useful independent reporting aside from the Q&A.  There are a many other articles that don't go in-depth by themselves such as the Le Progrès piece, but together they add a little more to what is in these two.  Jogurney ( talk ) 17:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - I agree with Jogurney.  This passes GNG by skin of teeth Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:37, 12 April 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.

Discussion outcome: keep