Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ante Bakmaz

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ante Bakmaz[edit]

(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 author based on a claim that the Maltese and Lithuanian top flights are fully pro. This is refuted by sources at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough here to satisfy WP:GNG for me, as for WP:NFOOTBALL, we don't always recognise playing in Europa League qualifying rounds as passing, but the coverage for that has swayed my argument for keep. Govvy (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With one exception, all of the sources listed are either match reports, statistical profiles, or transfer announcements, all of which are routine sports coverage. The only source that differs is the article titled "Ante Will Find a Way", which was written by Bakmaz himself and is not independent of the subject. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Although there are a number of references, I agree with the analysis above that they are routine reports that do not discuss the player in any real depth. Fenix down (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fauks the notability guidelines for football, and any reasonable interpretation of GNG that considers just the huge mass of information out there and takes a reasonable view of significant would exclude this article from passing it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the Latvian and Lithuanian leagues aren't included here [[1]] but this is also a great example of the types of articles WP:GNG is meant to keep: his career has been very well covered in the press by non-routine sources. SportingFlyer talk 18:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While appreciating the efforts made by this article's creator to add sources in a genuine attempt to demonstrate general notability, I don't think they've managed to. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The independent sources present in the article are routine match reports, transfer news, and namechecks; none discuss Mr Bakmaz or his career in any detail. The only significant coverage is still the article written by the subject himself, which can't be used towards GNG. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2018 (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.