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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Valmir Nafiu

AfDs for this article:

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

Valmir Nafiu (  | 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)

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or any of the WP:SPORTS criteria. None of the other language wikis have sources that are either a)independent or b) provide significant coverage of the subject. Doing WP:BEFORE reveals only a few pieces of routine coverage. Out of the sources here: [1] and [2] go in depth, and seem to be independent. No clue about reliability.

[5],[6],[7],[9] aren't independent, due to being published by his former club.

[8] does not mention him.

[3]&[4] are just routine coverage mentioning that he played in a certain match.

[10] is a data base entry, which isn't in-depth.

This leaves us with two sources, both of which were published the last time this article was deleted.

(Disclaimer: found this page through a CCI, and I've deleted a paragraph over copyright concerns. The only source I deleted, however, also did not mention the subject.) GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 08:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Yes the article has weak sources which are pretty much primary sources, but that doesn't negate the article, it needs a clean up. Besides you have other sources at de:Valmir Nafiu, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], lots more with stuff on him, poor nomination, WP:BEFORE clearly not done correctly in my opinion.. Govvy ( talk) 08:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The German wiki has 9 sources, 7 of which are not independent. Of the other 2, one is stats and the other contains little info on him. Your sources are interviews, non independent websites and match reports which isn't sigcov. Dougal18 ( talk) 09:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • ...Did you actually read those sources? They clearly do not amount to GNG coverage. 1: interview by his football club Red XN. 2: interview in Telegrafi with 1 independent sentence on him Red XN. 3: his football club Red XN. 4: part of 1 sentence in a routine transaction announcement Red XN. 5: part of 1 sentence in a routine match recap Red XN. 6: 1 sentence in a routine match recap Red XN. If you're going to accuse others of being lazy with their BEFOREs maybe don't use such obviously garbage sources as examples of what they missed. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 07:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - @ GiantSnowman:, I think important context is needed here... The sources do have secondary coevrage and even then if you look at Macedonian media it tends to cover players in the form of seemingly "routine" media (see [7], [8], and [9], as opposed to e.g. Indonesian media which tends to write about players in more long-form profiles). He has been covered by various Macedonian news outlets. As a result, I feel that the fact that he has received lots of coverage by many Macedonian outlets in the form of shorter seemingly "routine" articles ( [10], [11], [12] etc, has Wikipedia pages in eight languages and has played in German Bundesliga, made 100+ appearances and helped Macedonian team win three keague titles and has ongoing career is enough all put together. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 23:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    They are "seemingly routine" because they are routine... those are all routine transaction announcements and match reports, which we see loads of for every footballer. Which source specifically meets SPORTCRIT's requirement for IRS SIGCOV? JoelleJay ( talk) 11:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Okay, leaving aside the first three links, because they're not about this footballer, [10], as JoelleJay caught, is a site run by the governing sports organization and can't help show notability due to lack of independence. I clicked on a few links from [12], which is when I noticed that none of those pages had an author listed. Looking at the site a bit further, their about page reveals this:

    Through "TEAM" readers receive original, exclusive, but primarily verified, reliable and accurate information. In addition to the team of professional sports journalists, the top Macedonian athletes in the role of columnists have their own space and say in "TEAM".

    Given that the articles written by athletes don't seem labeled, we're going to have a really hard time verifying that anything in this site is independent. And, given that this is a WP:BLP, I don't think articles with unclear authorship can even be used. Can they?
    And as for the links in [11]- The previews just seem routine, but I clicked on them all only to get 404 pages. I've been having lots of trouble with Internet Archive for the past day, and I don't feel like struggling with it for what seems to be, again, routine coverage.
    @ GiantSnowman I trust your judgement, and you obviously saw something I'm missing. Could you give me the sources you saw that show notability? GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 00:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – In fact, there seems to be a lack of independent sources that provide more in-depth coverage (the best one is from KF Shkendija's own website), but the recreation of the article does not seem to be in bad faith, SALT would be too much. Svartner ( talk) 03:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Svartner:, For further context, see my comment above, (GiantSnowman has also changed his vote to keep). Thanks Das osmnezz ( talk) 07:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
As I said, the best source is from the player's own club. For me it is a case of weak keep, but it is on the limit to establish WP:GNG. Svartner ( talk) 00:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It's always routine coverage, talking about parts a player played in a game, Cristiano Ronaldo has huge amounts of what you call routine coverage. You people voting to delete never look at the cumulative amount of sources. This players has more than enough cumulative sourcing to pass WP:BASIC. Govvy ( talk) 10:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep—Obvious keep. Had a long, established first-team career, and the sources shown clearly meet WP:GNG. Anwegmann ( talk) 21:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Which sources? Because, so far, nobody's linked to any source that is independent, reliable, or gives WP:SIGCOV, so I'm not sure how they can count to the GNG. Could you please link the ones you found convincing? GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 22:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    See Govvy's and Das osmnezz's comments above. Also, as Govvy argues immediately above, collective effect is important and real. Anwegmann ( talk) 22:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Govvy gave no independent or significant sources- just interviews, database entries, and routine coverage. Das osmnezz also linked to no sources- just a search result, which was annoying seeing as they specifically filtered one of their search results to a non-independent site, but none of the sources seemed to help the subject pass the GNG. I would just like a link to one source that is independent, provides significant coverage, and is reliable. If the subject "clearly" passes the GNG, this should not be hard to provide, and we shouldn't have to fall on a "collaborative effort" style argument.
    I also disagree with Govy's interpretation of WP:BASIC, which establishes that

    trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability

    but I suppose that's a point of policy for the closer to decide. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 00:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ GreenLipstickLesbian: Firstly it would be polite to ping me when you talk about me, secondly, of the sources I posted, there are multiple independent sources. To say that of the sources I posted above are not independent is a false statement. I look at cumulative count per WP:BASIC, which has multiple published in bold! Followed by secondary sources that are reliable. Yes there are drips and drabs, but under the guise of BASIC you're allowed to hunt down all sources to build that cumulative count. I am using straight forward simple logic. The first part of BASIC is significant coverage, however that does not indicate it needs to be to one article and never has. There for you are allowed to determine sigcov over multiple articles. This is a constant battle and I really don't understand why seasoned Wikipedians constantly fall into the trap thinking that SIGCOV requires a full storied article, why understanding the BASIC rule allows it to built over multiple articles. I strongly suggest you read and re-read the first bullet point on WP:BASIC. Regards Govvy ( talk) 10:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see any independant source, sorry. -- SGaurier ( talk) 23:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment - Closer needs to take into account that this user was created on May 11 and 2 out of 3 of his eidts came in football AFDs... Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 04:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment—And it has not made any other contributions to Wikipedia before or after 28 May (as of 4 June). Anwegmann ( talk) 22:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I'm not saying there's any bad faith from anyone involved but I see it as WP:GAMEing the system to say that coverage is just news about signings and games. As Anwegmann and Govvy had been saying, why would media even be interested in those stories if this man didn't have some sort of a following? Anyway, here's a source from Hamburg's Morgenpost documenting his whole career, which is clearly not routine coverage [13]. And before anyone cries "local media", Hamburg has a metro population of 5 million and that newspaper's website is ranked #32 among German news sites. Please also search the native name "Валмир Нафиу", there are tons of results, you can't honestly say that they count for nowt because they are covering individual events over a sequence of several years. Unknown Temptation ( talk) 14:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Is this source actually from Morgenpost, or HSV? It's not on Morgenpost's official website (www.mopo.de). Rather, the URL is www.hsv24.mopo.de - thus implying it's some form of collaboration between the tabloid and the Naifu's former football club. While I appreciate the serious allegations you and others have made towards my conduct in this AFD, I still find myself questioning this source's independence. I also wonder why, if this man is obviously as notable as everybody is saying, why nobody can produce even one source that is independent, reliable, or in-depth. I have seen a lot of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:OTHERLANGS, and WP:MUSTBESOURCES type-arguments, however. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 19:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Also, even though I didn't mention you by name: @ Govvy, I tangentially mentioned you in the above comment, and you requested above that I ping you in these situations. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 19:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    It's part of Morgenpost's domain. I don't see how including the name of a football club on a website indicates that it is operated by the club, and something like that needs assertive proof rather than your gut feeling that it's non-independent, which seems to me to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even the newspaper's press releases about this website don't mention this supposed golden endorsement [14]. I imagine a lot of people buy/read that newspaper just for the football and it helps to have a specialist part of the domain. It's not serious allegations if people think that you're poo-pooing every single source until we find some 1,000-page biography or academic article on this player. I haven't argued WP:OTHERLANGS in the sense of saying foreign Wikipedias are reliable, because they aren't, but have you even searched for his name in his native language before I brought it up? Or Greek for his career in Cyprus? WP:BEFORE. Quite frankly, I'm not going to learn Macedonian to evaluate all of these sources, did you check them before [15] Unknown Temptation ( talk) 20:15, 3 June 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valmir_Nafiu_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1227504890"