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 keep. BD2412 T 04:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Philipp Offenthaler

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

Philipp Offenthaler (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am fully aware that someone who plays in the 'Austrian second division football' is presumed notable under WP:NFOOTY, however, after searching for any sources I could add to the article, I'm not seeing any sources that can demonstrate notability in this case and am contesting the presumption of notability. The article was added with only links to stats pages at Soccarway and WorldFootball.net (not significant coverage), without any attempt to demonstrate the that the subject meets the general notability guideline (A practice all too common with low-level sportspeople).

I can't find any sources that have significant coverage of him at all.

The only mentions of him in the news that I can find are these: [1], [2], [3]. they don't even approach that is necessary to satisfy the GNG (one line mentions only). The only other sources online are a multitude of stats pages on aggregation sites, which also don't represent significant coverage. If anyone can actually find sources that demonstrate notability, I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 17:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 17:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, is a young player with an ongoing career. This is not the same as a player with one appearance twenty years ago. The presumption that GNG is met applies. Giant Snowman 11:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply
GiantSnowman, Are you trying to imply that NFOOTY gives a presumption of future notability? That is a WP:CRYSTAL argument and you know it. GNG is not met, I’ve searched, so there is no longer any such presumption. Have you found anything? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 19:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply
No, it is a presumption of current notability. Not being able to find a glut of online sources in a foreign language is not the sole indicator. Giant Snowman 20:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply
GiantSnowman, Then why did you point out "ongoing career". I'm not talking about requiring a 'glut'; there aren't any available. The whole point of the GNG is because we need sources with significant coverage to be able to say any more than "this guy exists". If there aren't any, he doesn't pass the GNG and we can't expand the article. Also, I would argue that your position would make a lot more sense presuming notability for a player from twenty years ago, as it would be more plausible that the sources would not be online. This guy is contemporary, in the internet age, where pretty much all news/coverage that would satisfy the GNG is posted online in some form or another (even regional newspaper coverage). As for foreign language; Google search works just as well in German as it does in English, so the foreign language argument doesn't hold much water with me (this might be different if he was Chinese or something). The sources just are not there, and there is no reason to presume that offline sources exist that are not available online for a contemporary sports figure of the internet age. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 22:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Please, continue to be aggressive, that will certainly help me change my mind. Giant Snowman 09:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply
GiantSnowman, have you found any sources to support notability? As I said in the nomination, I'm happy to withdraw if anyone can find anything that can demonstrate that he meets the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 17:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think notability is established. Celestina007 ( talk) 15:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It is common, check the archive for examples, to keep footballers with ongoing careers when NFOOTY is satisfied; especially ongoing NFOOTY, subject played again just a few hours ago (per Soccerway). R96Skinner ( talk) 00:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the NSPORTS SNG says that subjects are 'presumed' to be notable. In other words, we presume, without having to do a detailed search, that the subject meets the GNG based on the fact that subjects at that level generally do meet the GNG. Presume means "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability". It's important to note that the SNG does not create notability, it is just an indication of who generally meets the general notability guideline (without having to go through the complicated business of searching and evaluating sources). However, if you actually do a thorough search and find nothing, then you know that the presumption turned out to be wrong. This might be because the subject simply didn't do much of note in their career, when others of the same level generally do. Or because the Wikiproject that decides what levels of FOOTY are presumed notable has been too generous. I'm not sure which of these is the case, but from my searches, available sources do not seem to suggest notability under Wikipedia's guidelines for this subject. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 10:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – fails GNG; I'm only finding brief mentions in game reports. The article has no secondary sources (see WP:USEPRIMARY), and we need secondary sources to base an article off of per WP:V. Right now, we just have stats, and we are WP:NOTSTATS. I've never been a fan of the "young and playing" rule – that local consensus shouldn't trump the global consensus of core policies like V and NOT, and in any event, consensus can change. – Leviv ich 05:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Or draftify – Per the source analysis below, it looks like there is one marginally-GNG source, and the player is still playing in a fully-professional league, and I think in such situations draftification makes sense in case a second GNG source may be written in the next six months. – Leviv ich 18:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As others have explained, a clear pass of WP:NFOOTY. The question isn't are there sources in the article, the question is do sources exist. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Smartyllama, I would never claim that notability depends on whether the sources are in the article. You are 100% correct; question is "do sources exist". But based on the searches that I have done and that Levivich has done, we can't find any secondary source that can be used to support the article (aside from brief mentions in game reports, which don't support notability). Your comment implies that you do believe such sources exist. Have you found any that you can point me in the direction of? As I said above, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination if a couple good sources can be found. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 20:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep votes aren't really addressing the question of GNG sufficiently to close as keep at the moment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 23:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment - I am looking through the sources and I see a brief mention of him winning Austrian Amateur player of the year here and the fact that he only 15km outside of his current club that he plays for in this reference. The rest of them at the moment I see only brief mentions of him in his match reports but isn't that what most pages on Wikipedia are like with football players. There is also the fact that he has played for 1274 minutes in an eligible WP:FPL league which would swing me over to a Keep for now. HawkAussie ( talk) 03:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply
1274 minutes is less than one season's worth of football, isn't it? In a second-tier league? I'm not at all surprised that there is no in-depth coverage of this player. Why would there be? Readers can look up his stats at Soccerway or Worldfootball.net... what is the point of copying those stats to Wikipedia? I don't get it. – Leviv ich 06:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep easily passes WP:NFOOTY. While there is some consensus that one or two appearances may be the exception to the presumption of notability, there hasn't been consensus to toss existing notability standards out the window in this manner. Nominators should improve the article, not ignore consensus. Nfitz ( talk) 18:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nfitz, I tried to improve the article. That is generally my first action with these Stats-only player pages; find a couple sources and then add them. The issue here is that no sources can be found that can be used to meet the GNG. (And NO, NFOOTY does not let us ignore the GNG or WP:V). NFOOTY is only a rule of thumb for what generally meets the GNG (that's why it says presumed notable, not *is* notable); NFOOTY does not determine what is notable and what isn't. I hate to beat a dead horse, but honestly, it is 100% against policy to say that something that can't be demonstrated to meet the GNG is notable because of NFOOTY, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override policy either, so just voting in numbers is not a solution either. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 19:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Improve the article then - the German version is far more extensive. The whole point of notability guidelines, is we shouldn't having to be wasting our time with such nominations, when there's been little attempt to improve the article. Nfitz ( talk) 19:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nfitz, The "far more extensive" German stub is full of either unsourced info or is just "he moved from X division to Y division on Z date" because that's all that can be verified via stats pages. No sources are available (that I have seen) that would enable me to meaningfully expand the article with encyclopedic content, that's why I brought it to AfD. Once again, I am happy to withdraw if 2 or more sources of decent quality can be found. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 01:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Don't say you tried to improve the article then - when there's easy ways to do so, and you didn't do it. Nfitz ( talk) 03:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Improve it with what sources? – Leviv ich 04:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The ones I mentioned above. They would improve the article, and WP:ATH has been met, and as WP:DINC, any source would help improve the article. Nfitz ( talk) 18:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Sorry, but I'm not seeing where you mentioned any sources above? You only mentioned German Wikipedia, which we can't use as a source, and their article is sourced to statistics websites (like transfermarkt) and a fan blog (fansports.com), which also can't be used to improve the article. So, what sources do we use to improve the article? – Leviv ich 21:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Not only can those sources be used to improve the article (there's other stats sites that confirm the transfermarkt information), there's more prose there as well. Nothing precludes article improvement. Claiming that one tried to improve the article, when one didn't, is not right. Nfitz ( talk) 00:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply
You keep saying "the sources", "those sources", etc., what sources are you talking about??? Are you saying we should cite our article to the German Wikipedia article? Or to Transfermarket? Or Fansports.com? Or if not those, then to what are we citing? – Leviv ich 00:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply
What I said was pretty clear. I think your time would be better trying to improve the article, rather than forever arguing with people who disagree with you. Nfitz ( talk) 19:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply
I'd love to improve this article. What sources shall I use? – Leviv ich 19:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Never mind, others have done this. Nfitz ( talk) 00:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Nfitz, With regards to insinuations that I am lying about trying to improve the article; let me be clear. Many sportspeople pages are created with only links to stats pages and little to no other info. This is generally in violation of WP:NOTSTATS, but it is fine so long as better sources exist that can be used to expand the article later on. When I said that I always try to improve these articles, what I mean is that my first action is always to search for additional sources, and at the very least add a couple of them to the article (perhaps with some additional info about the subject that would be useful/interesting to the reader). I tried that with this article, but found zero sources of sufficient quality to add anything meaningful to the article. What you are talking about (if I am reading correctly) is expanding the article to merely include more statistics info sourced to stats pages. Expansion is not necessarily improvement, especially if that expansion is merely more meaningless statistics. So no, I'm not going to expand it with more statistical info, especially when the result would still be an article which fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines that I would still be obligated to bring to AfD. Do we know anything about this guy at all aside from some numbers about what games he has played and what teams he has played for? Due to the plethora of stats paged fueled by fantasy football leagues, those sorts of statistics can be looked up for virtually any amateur player as well (from levels well below the threshold for notability). Links to stats pages without any significant coverage about the person do not support notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 19:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply
I haven't insinuated you were lying. I insinuated that you had significantly exaggerated that you tried to improve the article. I see no edits that attempted to improve the article. When the article was 38 minutes old, you tagged it for issues. One minute later you fixed a typo. And then you waited 12 minutes before sending it to AFD, despite knowing the subject easily meeting WP:NATH. I don't see that this is trying to improvie the article. Please don't claim you've made edits, that you haven't made. Perhaps you could apologize for this, by now trying to improve the article! Nfitz ( talk) 19:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Nfitz, I have explained what I meant. In any case, even if a subject meets the criteria for WP:NFOOTY, if sources cannot be found for the subject to meet the WP:General notability guideline, then the presumption of notability made by NFOOTY does not apply. NFOOTY does not create notability, it is merely a general rule of thumb to indicate at what sporting level athletes will often meet the GNG. However, they still have to meet the GNG to be considered notable. This seems to be a concept that keep !voters saying "passes WP:NFOOTY" do not understand (despite the fact that I explained it in the nomination and several times in this AfD). If keep !voters are going to ignore how our notability guidelines work and !vote 'keep' anyway, they I would suggest that the closer discount such !votes in the close; a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS or simple majority of !voters cannot override policy and guidelines. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 00:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
It's not just a rule of thumb, it's a guideline. A guideline to create a black line, so that we don't have people wasting our time with endless debates about which point younger players are notable. If cases where there's one fully professional cap of a few minutes, and no coverage, then that's an exception that's worth talking. But a young player, who made their first fully professional cap only 16 months ago, and has since had 17 caps, with sources that support this, is well past where the black line has been set. By pushing a more discerning standard here, rather than at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), you just serve to create confusion, and potentially waste the time that this black line is meant to save. Nfitz ( talk) 03:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Nfitz, I've explained this several times before on this page. Please look up the definition of 'presumed'. NFOOTY does not say that players that pass it's arbitrary thresholds ARE notable, it says that they are "presumed notable". Presumed means "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability". They still have to pass the GNG; NFOOTY just tells us what is likely to pass the GNG. This guy does not pass the GNG. I admit that the sports notability guidelines are confusing but the word 'presumed' was chosen intentionally. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 11:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Are you really suggesting that we must now start carefully examining hundreds of players a year (a month?) who achieve full professional status, and are at the beginning of their career? There's no lack of sources to confirm what this player does, from reliable sources, and they are playing almost every week. GNG doesn't trump common sense - the amount of extra work for the project from your interpretation of how to deal with this, could be immense, and it is entirely unnecessary based on a poor intepretation of non-existent rules. It's easy enough to improve the article - if you'd actually done what you claimed to have done in the beginning. Nfitz ( talk) 14:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Nfitz, When creating articles, authors should provide sources showing that the subject is notable. If they don't, they should at least verify that such sources exist. If they can't, perhaps they shouldn't be so hasty in creating an article on a player who has just started their career and may or may not end up getting significant coverage in reliable sources? Doing otherwise is contrary to WP:V and WP:RS. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 00:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Insertcleverphrasehere I think you are confusing WP:V, WP:RS, and GNG. V requires that the information in the article is verifiable - and it surely is. RS requires that reliable sources be used, and surely they have been. Your issue seems to be that you want longer, more detailed articles, to meet GNG (though I think we are pretty close to that already). But that doesn't mean there are any WP:V or WP:RS issues. Nfitz ( talk) 03:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
... and WP:BLP and WP:NOR and the first pillar. – Leviv ich 00:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
There's no original research here - and you know it. And I don't see any BLP violations either. I don't know if you are just throwing stuff out there, without thinking about it, or if you really don't understand these policies - but either way, you can't argue it this way. Nfitz ( talk) 03:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
A BLP that is based on primary sources violates the WP:BLPPRIMARY part of WP:BLP, and the WP:PSTS and WP:SYNTH parts of WP:NOR. – Leviv ich 04:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
I don't see any primary sources in either the English-language or German-language versions. There's certainly nothing in the article that's not confirmed by secondary sources. I don't see how this is an issue. What words in the article do you consider original research or a BLP violation? Nfitz ( talk) 06:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
If you don't see primary sources in the article, you need to reread WP:PRIMARY and WP:USEPRIMARY and look again, particularly at the statistics websites and the reports of contemporaneous events, like matches and transfers and such. Nowhere did I say there are words in the article that I consider BLP or OR violations–I guess you should re-read my comments above, too, if that's what you took away from them. I'm done here, Fitz. – Leviv ich 18:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Source analysis – going off of this version of the article:
    1. [4] stats only
    2. [5] stats only
    3. [6] one-sentence mention
    4. [7] team's website
    5. [8] Local paper, 6-sentence routine report that he won an "amateur player of the season" award
    6. [9] About 275 words in the same local paper about the player, a routine transfer ("new-guy-on-the-team") report, but arguably SIGCOV.
    7. [10] Same local paper, 6-sentence routine coverage
    8. [11] Same local paper, 8-sentence routine transfer report
    9. [12] One-sentence mention that he signed a contract. – Leviv ich 18:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closer about DRV – Closers may want to be aware of this potentially related DRV, filed today. – Leviv ich 18:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
That's a good point made by User:Levivich. A review of that DRV makes it clear that, especially as noted by User:Dream Focus, " WP:NOTABILITY clearly states an article is notable if it passes the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines. It has never had to do both". As this AFD is a much larger pass of NFOOTBALL (over 17 appearances for a 22-year old who is starting regularly, versus 3 appearances about 70 years ago) and has by far better references and sourcing, then, there should be no doubt that the delete votes here should have no weight! Nfitz ( talk) 01:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In only a few minutes of Googling, I found several, sources discussing the player in great detail. The second discusses the same award as one of the sources, but Sky Sports is a much more significant source than some local website and goes into more detail too I think, though admittedly I'm relying on the translation. I'd imagine if I had hours to look through Austrian media and newspapers I could find even more. I would argue the Sky source definitely satisfies GNG, and while I'm not sure on the reliability of the first source, if it is reliable, it too satisfies GNG. It has "Fan" in the name but not everything with "Fan" in the name is a blog - see FanGraphs - and maybe "Fan" means something else in German than it does in English, I really don't know. I'd also argue that several of the local sources satisfy GNG, including the one about the award. And I'm not even sure how local that website is. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
    • FanReport seems to be an WP:SPS, as suggested by the author being the administrator of the website. Where on this SkySports page do you see significant coverage of Offenthaler? All I see is a video clip of the award ceremony where he was presented with the amateur award. Is there a different Sky Sports page you meant to link to, or am I missing something on the page? – Leviv ich 19:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
      • I don't speak German and Google Translate doesn't work on videos, but it appears to be about him winning the award. It includes a clip of him receiving it, but that doesn't appear to be the entirety of it. Someone who speaks German will have to say for sure, though. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
      • And clicking on a handful of random articles on FanReport, they have at least two other authors, one of whom is listed as a "Redaktuer" (editor, according to Google Translate) so I don't think it's an SPS. Maybe an Austrian equivalent of SB Nation (which has had mixed opinions on whether it and its associated sites satisfy GNG), I'm not sure. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
        • You don't need to speak German to see that the Sky Sports video is a two-minute clip of an awards ceremony. First they announce who the winner is, then he comes up from the audience to receive the award, and the hosts ask him some questions. You can't seriously be suggesting that this is SIGCOV, or even a reliable source?As for FanSports, I don't see any information about editorial control or oversight on that website. On this page, the owners of the website disclaim any responsibility for the content. That some of their authors are labeled "editor" or "administrator" suggests to me it's like a forum. Appears to be user-generated or SPS, but I don't see anything on there suggesting it's an RS. – Leviv ich 20:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
          • That's a standard legal disclaimer that you see on just about every website, even the Washington Post. And Sky Sports is one of the best-known sports media sources in the world, I'm shocked you don't consider it an RS. Smartyllama ( talk) 00:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
            • Nein, I don't think it is a "standard" legal disclaimer, at least not for publications. Another example is that it refers to itself as a "channel" and "platform" but not as a creator of content: "LAOLA1 versteht sich als Info-Channel für sport-relevante Informationen, sowie als Plattform für den Informationsaustausch zwischen sportlich interessierten Internet-Usern" (LAOLA1 sees itself as an information channel for sport-relevant information, as well as a platform for the exchange of information between sport-interested Internet users.). I don't see anything like that in WaPo's TOS that you linked to, or in Bild's TOS, either (to take one German example). As for the video of the awards ceremony... I'm incredulous at the suggestion that a two-minute video of the subject receiving an award at an awards ceremony meets SIGCOV, even if it's hosted by Sky Sports. I mean, that's not secondary, it's not in-depth, it's not independent, it's not reliable, it fails on every single criteria of SIGCOV. – Leviv ich 01:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
              • Sky Sports isn't secondary? That's absurd. Just about everything you've said in this AfD is absurd. It's clear where consensus is going so I'm just going to leave this be and hope we see a reasonable close and not a supervote from a certain admin. Smartyllama ( talk) 02:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                • No, "Sky Sports" isn't secondary. Of course not, that's a nonsensical statement. A publisher can't be a "secondary" or a "primary" source. It depends on the document you're analyzing. When Sky Sports publishes a sports analysis article on its website, then yes, of course it's a secondary source. When Sky Sports publishes its address on its website, then it's a primary source. It all depends on what you're looking at. And when you're looking at an awards show host announcing who won an award, that's a primary source. It doesn't matter if that video is hosted at Skysports.com or at YouTube, it's a primary source–it doesn't get more primary than a video of an award being announced. That's the equivalent of sourcing an article about a football match to a video of that match. Of course that's primary! Just about everything you've said in this AfD is absurd is, frankly, exactly how I feel about your comments here as well. I'll agree with you to disagree with you and leave this here. – Leviv ich 03:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                  • Unless the article is about "Sky Sports" or a Sky media program, then Sky Sports is a secondary source. Nfitz ( talk) 03:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                    • No, that's not correct, you're confusing WP:ABOUTSELF with WP:SECONDARY. A secondary source is a source that's based on other primary sources. A Sky Sports reporter who interviews people and reads documents and writes an article about Sky Sports's history that's published on Sky Sports... that's a secondary source. It's not independent, it's ABOUTSELF, but it's secondary. A match report is a primary source when it's reporting on what happened during the match, but it can be a secondary source when it's providing analysis, future predictions, or history of recent games, etc. See WP:USEPRIMARY. A video of an awards show is a primary source; there's no editorial there at all. It's like a photograph. In fact, it's 60 photographs per second. – Leviv ich 04:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                      • No confusion about aboutself ... but I agree, for something like that award video, that would be primary - but a typical soccer broadcast and most of Sky Sports content, is a secondary source, as it's full of analysis and history. I'm not sure how it's not a reliable source though - we've got two secondary sources already confirming this, and here's a primary source, which there's no prohibition about using, given we've got secondary sources confirming this. Nfitz ( talk) 06:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                        • Sure there's no prohibition on using it, but it doesn't contribute to notability. The Sky Sports link is not a WP:SPORTBASIC/ WP:BASIC/ WP:GNG source, because the video is not a secondary source. Other than arguably #6 on my list above, I'm not seeing that there's any other sources so far in this discussion that meet SPORTBASIC, etc. – Leviv ich 06:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                        • Here is another source that could be used to meet GNG that was apparently not considered. But undoubtedly Levivich will find some flaw with that too. Despite the fact that by my count we are now well over a dozen sources, not to mention easily clearing the NFOOTY bar (not marginal at all unlike some at AfD) somehow none of them are OK. At this point I'm not convinced he'd be satisfied with any source. Smartyllama ( talk) 17:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                          • WP:SPORTBASIC/ WP:BASIC/ WP:GNG don't say "any source". SPORTBASIC specifies (1) multiple, (2) published, (3) non-trivial, (4) secondary, (5) reliable, (6) intellectually independent, and (7) independent of the subject. So yeah, if you put forward a dozen sources that do not meet those criteria, then they don't count as sources supporting notability. You waste everyone's time by suggesting that sources that obviously don't meet the criteria, are actually sources that meet the criteria. Statistics websites, routine transfer reports, brief mentions that are only a few sentences long, primary sources, team websites, self-published sources, and so many more, do not satisfy the criteria. Here, again, you put forward this Heimatsport article that has two sentences reporting on the player's contract signing. It's trivial (two sentences), and it's primary (a contemporaneous report of an event: the contract signing), and it obviously isn't a SPORTBASIC/BASIC/GNG source. That's not nitpicking, that's not wikilawyering, that's just applying the guideline to the source. Source #6 on my list above is one that arguably meets the criteria. But we need "multiple", per the guidelines, and I'm not seeing a second. I find your refusal to actually apply the SPORTBASIC or GNG criteria to the sources you put forward to be tendentious. You need to at least make a good faith argument that those boxes are checked. – Leviv ich 18:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                            • I suggest you read WP:PRIMARY. By your logic everything is a primary source since it reports on something that happened. That's absurd. I have explained why I believe these sources support GNG. So have other editors. You either can't be bothered to read, don't care, or are deliberately misinterpreting what we are saying. Smartyllama ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                              • Are you saying that when a newspaper publishes an article that says "John Smith signed a contract with the local football team", that's NOT a primary source? The Heimatsport article you just put forward says "Philipp Offenthaler (18) vom niederösterreichischen Landesligisten SC Union Ardagger wird unter Vertrag genommen" which Google translates to "Philipp Offenthaler (18) from the Lower Austrian Landesligisten SC Union Ardagger is taken under contract". That's primary, not secondary. It's a contemporary newspaper story. You haven't explained how that source meets the 7-part criteria–you haven't analyzed any source in this entire discussion. You're just posting links and making assertions. And your assertions, such as that the Haimatsport article is primary, are just flat wrong. For the love of Jimbo, read WP:USEPRIMARY, particularly the WP:NEWSPRIMARY part, particularly this:

                                ... an event may happen on Monday afternoon, may be written about in Tuesday morning's newspapers, and may be added to Wikipedia just minutes later. Many editors—especially those with no training in historiography—call these newspaper articles "secondary sources". Most reliable sources in academia, however, name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources.
                                —  WP:NEWSPRIMARY

                                But really, I'm done here. – Leviv ich 18:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                                • If you are still falsely claiming after all these years, that a newspaper report about a transfer, is a primary source, you should be topic-banned from AFD, and all your past votes should be stricken! The lack of competency shown here is stunning! Nfitz ( talk) 19:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                                  • Yes, it's primary, it's a contemporaneous report of an event. There is no analysis of other primary sources involved, which is the hallmark of what makes a secondary source, a secondary source. The report of the fact that the transfer occurred is primary. If someone writes an analysis of how the transfer is going to affect the team's chances, or how this transfer fits into a team's overall strategy for the season, that would be secondary. But article reporting that "John Smith was signed today" is a primary source. I do agree that editors who don't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources shouldn't be participating in AfD discussions. – Leviv ich 19:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                                    • No it's not primary. There's nothing in WP:PRIMARY that talks about contemptuous media reports, which by their very nature are one step removed from the event, and are secondary (assuming they aren't verbatim regurgitation of press releases - which don't appear to be the case here). I can't even fathom where you are getting this from! Perhaps you can quote whatever policy you are seeing? Nfitz ( talk) 19:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                                      • Are you trolling? I quoted it above. In a frickin' colored box. With an ALLCAPS link. WP:PRIMARY is part of the WP:NOR policy, and WP:NEWSPRIMARY is part of WP:USEPRIMARY, the explanatory supplement to the NOR policy. USEPRIMARY goes into detail about things that PRIMARY doesn't, like contemporaneous media reports–that's specifically what the WP:NEWSPRIMARY section of USEPRIMARY addresses. I've linked to USEPRIMARY like half a dozen times now, and I just quoted NEWSPRIMARY in a quote box. How is it possible that you can't even fathom where I are getting this from? I'm getting this from WP:NEWSPRIMARY. – Leviv ich 19:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                                        • Please AGF - I didn't read that far, and only read the diff, which doesn't have the highlighting or colours (or colors!). Okay ... looking at that other NEWSPRIMARY essay ... that's in complete conflict with Wikipedia policy, and states clearly at the top that it's not policy. It's completely out-of-sync with the discussions we've been having at AFD for years. Please stick to policy - to try and introduce an essay about academic sourcing, that conflicts with our notability guidelines is blatant wikilawyering! Nfitz ( talk)
                                          • AGF that you commented before reading? LOL! Consider reading before you write a comment. For example, if you read NEWSPRIMARY, you'll see it's not an essay. It's part of USEPRIMARY, which is an explanatory supplement. If you look at WP:PRIMARY (part of the NOR policy), you'll see that it links to USEPRIMARY in the "Further information" hatnote. But if you want to believe that it doesn't have broad consensus, you're welcome to that opinion. – Leviv ich 19:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                                            • I'm sorry I assumed good faith, and that you were sticking to policy, rather than essays other documents that state they aren't policy! The amount of TLDR and WP:BLUDGEON you've accomplished here is astounding. NEWSPRIMARY states at the top that This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.. Stop the wikilawyering. Nfitz ( talk) 20:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                                              • Now you're arguing WP:ONLYESSAY while accusing me of wikilawyering for viewing a contemporaneous news report as a primary source. – Leviv ich 20:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                                            • Again, by your insane troll logic, all news reports are primary and nothing can possibly satisfy WP:GNG until years later. That's insane and if you truly believe that, I'm with Nfitz. You should be topic-banned from AfD since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
                                                • Can you three just move this chat somewhere else as you are going completely off-topic now. HawkAussie ( talk) 01:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, Lightburst ( talk) 21:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep meets NFOOTY. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:29, 4 December 2019 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philipp_Offenthaler&oldid=1068846984"