Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohizam Shah Dawood Shah

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 16:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator on the grounds that he had played in a professional league. This is false. He has not played above the second tier of Malaysian football, which is not confirmed as fully pro at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Arif Fazlie Saidin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the creator of these two pages nominated for deletion. Thank you for all your hard work patrolling Wikipedia pages. I would like to propose not to delete these pages, as Arif Fazlie has played during Perak 2009 Malaysia Super League campaign, and Mohizam Shah are currently on the books of Malaysia Super League side Felda United (he signed on April 2013). I have modified their pages to reflect on these changes, with citations. Again thank you for your concern and consideration. Fringe fighter (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both - Shah Dawood has never played in a fully professional league despite claims, Perak FA were in the Premier League when he was with them. Arif Fazlie is a technical WP:NFOOTY pass as he appears to have played a couple of games in an FPL, but I am not convinced there is sufficient for GNG here. Fenix down (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Fenix, Mohizam Shah never played for Perak FA. Arif Fazlie does play for Perak FA during 2009 season. Mohizam however has played for Felda in Super League games this year after signing for them in April, mainly as substitutes.Fringe fighter (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arif Fazlie but Delete Dawood Shah, because the former does pass WP:NFOOTY, if barely, and the latter because he hasn't played professionally. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. The lead section of WP:N says (with original highlighting):

    A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

    A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.

    Creator has produced sources to confirm both have played in the Malaysia Super League, which is listed at WP:FPL and thus sufficient to pass WP:NFOOTBALL, which is one of those listed in the aforesaid box on the right. The function of the subject-specific guideline is to provide a bright-line decision-making process, so that the article on a presumed-notable subject isn't deleted just because the article about that subject doesn't yet demonstrate general notability to the satisfaction of those of us here, myself included, who don't have ready access to relevant media in a language we couldn't read even if we had. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2013 (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.