Talk:Alex Iwobi

Early and personal life

In a recent interview streamed on Arsenal's official Facebook page, the player himself claimed the information on the Wikipedia page about him moving to England at the age of four was incorrect, rather his family left Nigeria when he was four months and moved to London when he was eight months old. If Facebook videos from his employer's official account don't count as a source, could we please remove the incorrect information claiming he arrived when he was four years old at the very least? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5053:4100:C83B:6722:8AC:D984 (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"Facebook videos from his employer's official account don't count as a source" – How did you get that impression? These sort of sources are frequently used. If we've got a reputable source, and in my book the one you mentioned would be one, we could correct the information sourced from a Guardian article. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"How did you get that impression?" Unfortunately my last two edit have been undone (by the same user) despite my detailed explanation giving an exact time in the video where the player himself directly refutes incorrect Wikipedia information. Can someone please make this revision? Clearly every attempt I've made will not be allowed to stand, with the user revising citing 'need better source than facebook". An official interview with the player on one of his employer's official media channels is surely a more accurate source than a poorly researched article (regardless of whether it is a reputable source). Further the player himself REFUTES what has been written on Wikipedia! --2A02:C7D:5053:4100:E836:20E6:3CE7:8026 (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The information on the recent success of Alex Iwobi seems to be missing from this article. There is very little information on Iwobi's break into Arsenal's first team. Aside from this, all of the sources used in this article seem to be reliable sources. Csouc002 (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Best mate is or isn't trivial

The article currently includes the statement "He is 'best mates' with former Arsenal teammate Tyrell Robinson.[9]" In my opinion this info is WP:TRIVIA, in the opinion of GiantSnowman it isn't. Other opinions sought to try and reach a conclusion. Ta. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not trivial, and there's no consensus to remove it. GiantSnowman 13:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I really fail to see how this info (based on a passing mention in a match report) is encyclopaedic. It's the kind of thing that would be in a player profile in a match programme next to favourite food and first car owned. Just because something is sourced doesn't automatically make it of note. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It's mentioned here and here (amongst other places), not a passing mention in a match report... GiantSnowman 18:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A couple of mentions doesn't make it notable. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There's a reasonable amount of non-notable but sourced info in this article. A great example is "In July 2019, after the 2019 Africa Cup of Nations, he said he was looking forward to returning to club football with Arsenal.". Yes, there's a source, but platitudes like this add nothing whatsoever to the quality of the article. How does this kind of info expand the scope of the article? But, if I remove it, the edit gets undone. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

These are good sources. Improve the content, rather than remove it. GiantSnowman 12:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources are fine, but the information adds nothing to article. He may as well have said that he likes playing football. How can such inane content be improved? Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it should be included. Should we include all the run-of-the-mill stuff he says here, on joining Everton? [1] Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ilikeeatingwaffles. Standard interview quotes like saying he is sad that the manager is leaving, or that he wants to go back to playing at Arsenal after the AFCON, is run-of-the-mill coverage. WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Just because the source is reliable, doesn't mean that everything has to be included here, that is ridiculous logic. Anyone who wants to see every quote that Iwobi made in an interview published on the BBC website can look here. What next, include all his games because they're covered by reliable sources like the BBC and ESPN? GiantSnowman should find consensus before restoring this trivia. 2A00:23C5:E1AB:4500:5406:74C1:E6B5:A53 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Wait, this hasn't been removed yet?! Mattythewhite (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Taken it out again - let's see what happens... Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I removed the post-AFCON quotes a couple of times, and User:GiantSnowman put them back in. Do we have any consensus here, I'm not certain? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there anyone apart from GiantSnowman who thinks it should be in? And as this is not direct democracy, does anyone have a better reason for its inclusion rather than it being published by the BBC? I can't believe that such a standard nothing quote like saying he wanted to go back to Arsenal after the AFCON is in this article. It would be a story if he said the opposite, that's for sure, but really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E1AB:4500:9C29:7D4E:C67A:6F9 (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Goal against Man Utd

This should not be included per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TRIVIAL. We are an encyclopaedia, not a sports almanac, so do not need to write about every game/goal, only notable ones which are covered in detail by reliable sources. GiantSnowman 08:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

100% agree - I don't think that was the latest goal Fulham scored since records began in 2006-07 as the BBC does not mention that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh really, not notable according to whom?! How about it was mentioned in Fulham’s website, source, as their first away win in 21 years! I hope that you both contribute positively to this platform instead of labeling content as not “encyclopedic” as you prefer. BBC had the stats even wrong as they claimed that it was first away win since 1964 or something! 2A02:908:454:1660:21FA:6E59:3E10:2E3 (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

A player scoring a goal in a match, and that being mentioned in the club's own match report, is entirely to be expected. The same happens for every single goal in every single match! GiantSnowman 18:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This goal marked the first away win in 21 years against that opponent! How many times do I need to emphasize this point for you to understand?! You're repeatedly disregarding the significance of this achievement, treating it as if it's a common occurrence. I've come across countless football articles with similar details, but it seems you're unwilling to acknowledge its importance. Your insistence on removing the content reflects more of a personal stance than a rational decision. It's evident that one user is persistently trying to revert the changes without valid justification, turning this into a personal issue rather than a constructive discussion. I'll revisit this in three days to see if there's a resolution, hoping for a sensible conclusion to this unnecessary dispute. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:AE6B (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

You can emphasise it all you want - it is not a notable event. The only person supporting inclusion is you. GiantSnowman 19:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Associated Press reported that record, source, attributing the victory to Iwobi’s stoppage time goal. Fulham’s website reported it, you claim that it was normal, ESPN .. not notable, AP News .. not a reliable source. You are nothing but an obstructionist snowman, your contribution is nothing but negative, on top of that being rude, go crawl crying to the admins noticeboard claiming that is a personal insult. This platform is genuinely infested. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:AE6B (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

e.g. while Bafétimbi Gomis scored for Swansea v Arsenal in the 2014-15 season, that goal ensured Swansea to do the double over Arsenal since the 1981-82 season yet that is not mentioned in the player article. I've once mentioned that if you include every goal in a Lionel Messi article, it would be very large.

p.s. fyi, both me and GiantSnowman do contribute positively. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I think this goal should definitely be included, it was a game winner with his team playing away against one of the biggest clubs in the world, which is Man United. How late the goal was scored and if it was Fulham's latest in history should not matter as to whether a goal is notable or not. @GiantSnowman:, I think you are in the wrong here by saying this goal is not notable; this goal is more than notable, the user provided a source saying it was Fulham's first victory at Old Trafford in over two decades and that makes the goal very notable. Honestly I don't know why the notability of this goal was put up in the air, but I am willing to discuss. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:AE6B (talk) - I understand your frustration, but also from someone that has dealt with edit warring in the past, its best to remain calm when proving your point. Getting heated will not get you anywhere, but I wish you the best and I 100% defend your side. Matthew is here zero (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Where is the significant coverage? GiantSnowman 19:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You can take a look at the sources he sent you, to begin with. Or you can also do a google search on the game and how it is Fulham's first away win over United in over 2 decades. And, sourced content shouldnt be removed without consensus. This goal is far more important than the two he scored against forest for example, again this goal should have never been put up into the air as for its inclusion into the article. I am not going to argue with you over this, ping another editor and see what they think. Because if you are having trouble finding sources he clearly gave you with an URL, then that is YOUR problem. Matthew is here zero (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

One source was provided, which is a club match report. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide the sources which show it is a notable goal. Repeating 'it's Fulham's first away win over United in 20 years' is pointless. GiantSnowman 14:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I previously shared two sources, ESPN and AP News, but you're insisting that only his club reported it. Review the discussion above. I'm questioning whether you're genuinely ignorant or deliberately prolonging your obstruction tactics. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:AE6B (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That club match report is more than enough. it can be backed up with a Soccerway report. What is your point? Matthew is here zero (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Matthewishere0: I wonder why we are arguing with this stone-head snowman as if he owns this platform, he even dares to lie that only his club reported that, ignoring both ESPN and AP News sources provided earlier! Is he even a sane person?! He obviously would not readd the content by himself, so if you feel frustrated from his lies, edit them back and let him dare to revert. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:AE6B (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. GiantSnowman 19:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman I am going to be reinstating the deleted content. Matthew is here zero (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus for inclusion, so reverted again. GiantSnowman 21:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Matthew - FYI, you edited from your IP address when you restored the content, so we know that you are the same anonymous editor who has previously added the information. WP:SOCK applies. Why shouldn't you be blocked for pretending to be two people? GiantSnowman 21:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: So, you're resorting to accusing others of sock puppetry just to get us both blocked? Check the IP address between me and the other user, for heaven's sake! You keep deleting sourced content repeatedly, insisting it's not notable, when you're the only one who thinks so. @Matthewishere0: Remember when you advised me not to get worked up over that individual? They're trying to get you kicked off the platform. Good luck dealing with them! I've mentioned before, it's more of a personal matter for them than just an editing disagreement. It's all about them, disregarding everyone else. You can picture them checking the page daily just to remove this content, nothing but a narcissistic egomaniac. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:50A (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Matthew said he would restore the content - the IP did it for him a few minutes later. Matthew turned up to this discussion with no editing history of the article in question. AGF only goes so far. Also please stop with your insults or you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 08:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP's /64 range from this page (and the article page). Enough is enough with the personal attacks. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! GiantSnowman 12:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, no editing history on the article does not matter at all... Matthew is here zero (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Correction, I did not make the edit through my IP. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to but every IP has a location its tracked to and my location will not match the IP.... Matthew is here zero (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)