Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilal Sayoud (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 12:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Sayoud

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted in Nov 2017 at AfD in a rare case back then where the WP:GNG failure took priority over the borderline passing of WP:NFOOTBALL. This was then recreated in Dec 2017 despite the deletion consensus.

I would like to relist this for deletion again for the following reasons. The NFOOTBALL pass is still extremely weak. He has 16 mins of professional football to his name; this was an inconsequential cameo appearance in a cup game. His career thereafter has been played at amateur level and he is currently playing at least 3 tiers below a level that would be considered professional with no indication of any immediate return to the professional game. In terms of GNG, I can see no indication of any further coverage since the previous discussion. The best sources still appear to be a Coventry Telegraph Under-21 match recap, which contains a couple of sentences about him, and a Coventry Telegraph routine announcement about signing a two-year contract.

This does not meet the high bar that Wikipedia sets for a WP:BLP in terms of notability and significant in-depth coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to previous participants - @Domdeparis:, @My name is not dave:, @Pharaoh of the Wizards:, @Fenix down:, @Jogurney:, @Johnpacklambert:, @力: and new participants are, of course, welcome Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:NFOOTBALL does not supersede WP:GNG as is clearly stated in the FAQ at the top of WP:NSPORT. Doesn't matter if a subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL, he still has to have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources (fails GNG). Jogurney (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passes the notability guideline by a mere thin piece of string. One cup appearance for a league club and that's it. Nothing to suggest notability for any other reason. talk to !dave 06:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, did not play even quarter of a professional football game, and sources are not significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is the controlling stanard. It is not passed. We should not have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ortizesp: How? talk to !dave 15:04, 13 July 2021 (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.