Hassan Houbeib: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Africa .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A regular national team player who plays in a league that gets pretty much zero regular coverage.  He has no chance of SIGCOV even though he is clearly notable for Mauritanian football.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 22:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Zero regular coverage" and "no chance", you mean coverage in English, right?  I wouldn't know how to conduct a meaningful search in his alphabet, but he featured at the 2023 Africa Cup of Nations just a month ago.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] His appearance at 2024 AFCON speaks to my point, I think.  The Mauritanian and Iraqi leagues don't receive much coverage from trustworthy media sources—French, English, or Arabic—and individual Mauritanian players in the local league and more "obscure," for lack of a better word, leagues receive even less.  My point is that a strict interpretation of WP:SIGCOV , without taking larger context and performance into account, skews coverage on Wikipedia away from non-Western players, venturing into WP:BIAS territory.  Because Houbeib has appeared more than a dozen times for a national team and appeared in a major continental tournament recently that was broadcast around the world, to me, his notability is established.  Would I like to see more significant coverage in classical media sources?  Yes, of course.  But in this case, I don't think it's required to keep the article.  This isn't a third-division semi-pro player who represented his country once at under-19 level.  This is a regular player for a national team that qualified for and played in a continental tournament.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 16:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was just made aware of this AfD in another discussion circling around the possibility of inherent notability due to national team caps.  If anything, this provides some precedent for what I'm saying.  I acknowledge, though, that 15 national team caps is a bit low for inherent notability, given the precedent established in the linked AfD.  That said, though, appearance in the 2023 Africa Cup of Nations reasonably adds to this player's notability.  I would be willing to change my vote to "draftify" if we can reach some kind of consensus about this.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 16:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to clarify: the cap tally is now 21 .  I also believe that we are now far, far into WP:BIAS territory.  There is a difference between a performing team like Mauritania and insignificant countries (within football) such as Belize and Nepal.  But, alas: sources.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Although I don't fully agree that there is a difference between national teams, as they each have fundamental value in world football, I agree with your sentiment and overall point here.  Houbeib continues to appear for a national team that recently performed in a continental tournament.  This is well into the realm of WP:BIAS .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 01:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - He has international caps therefore he is undoubtedly notable. IJA ( talk ) 10:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which guideline states this? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , if even the editors advocating to keep this article acknowledge there is not and will not be IRS SIGCOV then clearly a standalone article is not warranted. JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - coverage found here (signing), here (signing), here (contract extension), and probably many more Arabic-language sources. All I did was search the player's Arabic name (الحسن سالم احويبيب) and some immediate results came back. I can't read or understand Arabic so my search ended after these three articles— but I'm sure there's way more. Then, we need to consider that the bar for Mauritanian footballers' coverage is lower than for Western players, as there is just naturally more media coverage of sports in Western countries in general.  Lastly, this guy has made 20+ caps for a prominent African national team, and has competed at a MAJOR tournament.  The evidence of coverage existing, the threshold being at a certain level, and the prominence of the player all bring me to the conclusion that article needs to be kept & improved.  I'd even suggest a page move to fix currently incorrect page title.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 01:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman and The Herald : Sources found.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 01:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You should ping JoelleJay .  I simply relisted.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 01:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those sources are the definition of routine, trivial transactional coverage, not to mention non-independent since almost everything in them is quoted from the club.  And the first two are essentially identical!  Why would you link to those sources as evidence of SIGCOV if you didn't even read them??  JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that these sources don't appear enough.  Giant Snowman 19:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman and JoelleJay : Y'all have your bar set way too high for coverage of this player.  You must remember that the subject is a Mauritanian footballer—not English, German, but Mauritanian .  Also, playing at a major tournament like AFCON definitely means that Arabic-language sources exist... deleting this article would start a slippery slope in which hundreds non-Western articles would get deleted simply due to a lack of easily-findable coverage by editors that exclusively use Latin-alphabet keyboards.  Take some time to do a proper Arabic-language search instead of bashing this article and not giving it much thought.  In my opinion, the surface-level presence of Arabic-language sources shows that relative to the depth of all coverage of Mauritania-related topics, this player has some kind of notability.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even more digging shows plenty of stuff about him popping up.  this , this , and notably this .  Yes, there is a routine feel to the coverage, but there's just a point where you have to understand that the bar is not as high as it would be for a player playing in Western Europe.  The fact that there's just this many articles on a relatively obscure Mauritanian footballer says something.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If this article is deleted, we could probably delete 50% of all articles about footballers from Arabic-language countries where media coverage is harder to find.  That's not a good thing.  I understand there are deletionists, but this isn't an article that should be deleted, especially considering how prominent this player is in African football.  (Yes, competing at two AFCONs is quite prominent, I think).  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that there is just naturally more media coverage of sports in Western countries in general is literally why more athletes from Western countries are notable.  If a subject doesn't get IRS SIGCOV then by definition it is not notable!  What you are arguing is for us to reinstate presumptions of coverage--or even inherent notability--based on the subject reaching some arbitrary, subjective level of achievement, but such presumptions have been repeatedly and near-unanimously rejected.  Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 54#Renewed proposal for association football (soccer) Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 55#Should we soften the phrase "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources."?  Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 52#Proposed Notability criteria track and field athletes (see WP:NTRACK) The community has rejected participation-based notability criteria even when a single appearance in some league or tournament empirically predicts SIGCOV 100% of the time ; there is thus 0% chance of us accepting any criterion whose SIGCOV predictive power isn't supported by any evidence at all.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The 2022 RfC made it clear the requirement for SPORTCRIT SIGCOV applies to all athletes, regardless of location or time.  We do not change our bar for coverage based on where the subject is from.  Conferring notability to some geographical subset of subjects via the exact same routine, trivial, and non-independent sources we dismiss for subjects everywhere else in the world is patronizing and would only encourage applying those same standards to progressively less encyclopedic tiers of Western subjects.  And presuming actual SIGCOV does exist based only on the presence of such low-quality non-GNG sources is exactly what was deprecated through wide consensus two years ago.  The 4th source you link is identical to source #3, #5 is trivial coverage of the same topic, and literally the only secondary independent coverage of Houbeib in #6 is Al-Zawraa player, Mauritanian Al-Hassan Ahouibib, joined the team's training today, Monday, after the end of his vacation, which was granted to him with the cancellation of last season.  The rest is taken directly from the club.  This is the case for all of the sources you've linked: a couple sentences of routine transactional announcements interspersed with "the club said [blahblahblah]" and more general updates on the club as a whole.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you think this article aught to be deleted, I urge you to start nominating every single other similar player article that has "less" notability than this guy.  You'll find that there's much more coverage of this guy than some other players who survived AfD in the past or that have articles that happen to exist despite probably failing GNG/SPORTCRIT.  I stand firmly in my belief that we're being too harsh here and that the coverage is enough.  Also, how did you brush by these sentences?  1. Al-Hassan Ahwaibib is considered one of the reasons for the strength of Al-Zawraa’s defense during the past season, due to its consistent level during the tournament.  2. Huwaibib plays as a libero.  He played great matches with Al-Zawraa last season, and succeeded in convincing coach Ayoub Odisho to renew with the team and lead the defense line...  These seem like notable secondary independent coverage of the subject.  That's three different sources offering secondary coverage.  Who says there isn't more?  I can't properly do an Arabic-language search and this is what I found easily.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 04:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you can find significant, Arabic-language coverage, then great. , I'll happily re-consider.  Giant Snowman 19:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You will find that I have been extremely consistent in supporting deletion of hundreds of subjects with this level of coverage.  We are slowly working through the backlog of poorly-sourced articles, so just because many still exist doesn't mean their standards of coverage are endorsed.  Those are among the routine, trivial sentences that I referenced above.  We would not consider someone in the 5th tier of English football to meet GNG with such sources, we should not lower our standards just because you think footballers in certain regions deserve articles.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  I can't close this as Keep if there is no SIGCOV because the decision would be immediately taken to WP:Deletion review where the closure would be overturned.  The possibility of Draftifying was raised, would this be an acceptable outcome until better sourcing can be located, perhaps in Arabic media sources?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Sources are trivial and routine.  If the subject does not receive significant coverage, there is nothing that can be done.  Additionally, the argument pointing to the existence of other articles related to players from Arabic-speaking countries is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS .  Industrial Insect (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Nothing but routine transfer and signing news popping up.  There are many many places online where somone can view the statistics and team history of a soccer player; Wikipedia needn't be one of them.  Mach61 — Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm concerned that someone would say that Mauritius is an Arabic-speaking country.  There's probably more Arabic spoken in many western countries than Mauritius!  Nfitz ( talk ) 20:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nfitz : Why do you keep mentioning Mauritius ?  We're talking about a Mauritanian player.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 09:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oops - Mauritanian not Mauritian.  Well, I should stop searching the Mauritian media!  Aren't I the fool!  Nfitz ( talk ) 11:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there's nothing in WP:ROUTINE that says that articles about transfers are routine coverage; the example given there is "sports score" and "sports matches".  If one wants to play by the "rules" that no longer make an international player (let alone with 20+ caps for his nation), one needs to not exaggerate the other "rules".  Nfitz ( talk ) 19:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if transactional announcements weren't overwhelmingly considered routine by editors at AfD, as you well know , the sources above also fail independence by simply repeating what club officials have said, and fail SIGCOV by being trivial.  Do you have any evidence of actual IRS SIGCOV or are you really claiming that the sources above that even other keep ! voters acknowledge is routine and non-significant actually meet GNG?  JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The bottom line is what's in policy and guidelines - not what a few editors have pushed.  I don't believe the claims of lack of independence are correct - how is this not independent?  I'll admit photographs of him playing in major Canadian newspapers don't count for anything - other than my surprise.  Nfitz ( talk ) 20:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nfitz , the issue is that these short articles are primary sources (see WP:NEWSPRIMARY ), and primary sources do not establish notability.  Unlike secondary sources, they contain no original analysis or synthesis of existing primary sources Mach61 01:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see User talk:Mach61 , how the that is an primary source.  Also, can you please explain why Rimsport and Cridem are not independent.  Nfitz ( talk ) 04:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nfitz May you please stop trying to preform a Gish gallop and actually address my argument.  I said nothing about independence, and I explained why I thought those sources were primary.  Mach61 12:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow - so rude.  Why?  I do not understand why you think that Rimsport and Cridem are primary sources.  I don't see where you've explained why they are primary sources - you've simply stated they are.  They don't look primary to me.  Nfitz ( talk ) 16:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nfitz Most every source you've brought so far is primary because they are original materials that are close to an event .  As explained at WP:NEWSPRIMARY , a newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events .  I called what you are doing a Gish gallop because you are not actually adressing the reasoning behind the arguments I have made, but are merely stating them to be incorrect without elaboration.  Cheers, Mach61 20:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Arguments?  What arguments?  You simply said it was primary, without even trying to explain why.  And why pretend I've provided multiple sources, when I provided one, that despite multiple polite requests, you won't even discuss.  This is not okay - you can't just make stuff up in AFD, User:Mach61 .  Nfitz ( talk ) 20:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you please explain (or retract) User:Mach61 ?  Nfitz ( talk ) 22:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No 🗿 Mach61 23:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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 Do you seriously need the policy to spell out "routine news coverage of announcements such as sports transaction announcements , ..."?  Someone else quoting/relaying information from primary non-independent sources does not make that information secondary and independent.  What you link now was not among the "sources above" that I referenced in my comment.  It is still clearly routine transactional news of dubious independence--more than likely it is purely derived from the club's press release.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The policy mention sports scores and sports matches.  And that's the test for having an article about a match; not even for using it as a source.  The article hardly reads like a press release, as it includes too much context.  I don't think you can use a hypothesis of it being a reprint of a press release that you can't find as the basis for anything here.  And really - 20 international caps - is this the hill to have a borderline debate about?  Given the lack of online Mauritanian news, we should probably defer this until there's a good database of Mauritanian news.  Nfitz ( talk ) 02:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not quoting ROUTINE.  I am quoting WP:NOTNEWS policy.  Newspapers report on every transfer announcement with similar depth and little independent secondary contribution, with almost all facts derived from the club's press release.  That is the definition of "routine news coverage of announcements ... [and] sports".  We have multiple people advising that Maurit anian news doesn't provide SIGCOV of this topic in general.  We don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise, and we had global consensus to deprecate any presumption that such coverage exists based on number of matches or tournament appearances.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 16:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If I follow that logic to the end, doesn't it mean not mentioning any transfers of players in most articles - unless like something tragic happens during the transfer.  Nfitz ( talk ) 22:31, 1 April 2024 (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: delete