Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berat Çetinkaya

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. L Faraone 01:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berat Çetinkaya[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 on the grounds that The coverage in the article appears demonstrating passing WP:GNG. However, the sources listed are routine sports coverage insufficient for general notability. The two in-line citations are routine transfer announcements, the external link a statistical player profile. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage of this person is in fact in-depth. In regards to sports coverage, WP:ROUTINE states it is meant for "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." Of course the coverage is well beyond "sports scores" and therefore not "routine sports coverage."--Oakshade (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list of what is routine coverage is by no means exhaustive. Just as an example, WP:NSPORT defines player profiles as routine, and the fact that transfer announcements do not amount to significant coverage is a long-standing consensus. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no. WP:NSPORT says no such thing. If you'd like to change WP:GNG or WP:SPORT to change the definition of "routine coverage", you need to make your case on the respective talk pages, not invent your own criteria in an AfD. And besides, these aren't just "stats" but third-party articles on this person. --Oakshade (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And besides what's in the article, there's also more coverage. [1][2]--Oakshade (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, this is the first time you've commented on a football related afd, so I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with the relevant case history before you accuse me of any impropriety. By comparison, I've nominated some 450 football BLP's for deletion, and if haven't commented, I've at least looked at pretty much every afd listed at WP:FOOTY over the three years. When I say that transfer news, which is all you've presented so far, does not amount significant coverage is an established consensus, it's not because it suits me, but because it's a rule, albeit an unwritten one, that I've seen consistently applied at afd. You'll find some recent examples here and here. You also seem to have misunderstood my comment regarding WP:NSPORT. I apologise if it wasn't clear. The comment refers to the external link in the article, which WP:NSPORT defines as routine coverage per the following: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The examples of "trivial coverage" including "listings in database sources" don't apply to the articles on this person since they're beyond the scope of "listings in database sources." --Oakshade (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to the profile on TFF database, and that source only. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first source present in the article is a brief (less than 70 words) report of the subject's transfer from one club to another; it supplies his name, birth year, playing position, how many games he played for his previous relegated club, name of new club, and suggests interest from other clubs (unnamed) in signing him. WP:GNG explanatory note 1 gives extreme examples of the different between in-depth and trivial coverage; the content of that first source is pretty close to the trivial end of that spectrum. Explanatory note 5 reminds us that as well as databases, announcements and the like, "minor news stories" are also among "examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined". The second source is an agency piece reproducing the club's formal stock-exchange announcement of the player's loan transfer, and is neither in-depth nor independent of the subject. Enough significant, non-trivial independent coverage of the subject to pass the general notability guideline may exist, but for a subject who doesn't pass the relevant subject-specific notability guideline, its existence needs to be demonstrated. As yet, it hasn't. By the time the subject passes WP:NFOOTY, hopefully there'll be enough coverage to write an informative article about him. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I don't know whether the Turkish second division is a fully-pro league (so I don't know if the article satisfies NFOOTBALL), but if we just look at online Turkish-language media coverage, it doesn't appear that this article satisfies the GNG. There are many articles in CNN Turk, Milliyet, etc, that cover his signing for Beşiktaş, but I don't think any are significant coverage of his career (they only include a brief mention of his participation at the Toulon tournament or with Sakaryaspor). There are also articles discussing his loan to Adana Demirspor, but again these don't appear to be significant coverage either. Jogurney (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:18, 21 June 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.