Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sağra Öztürk

Add links
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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sağra Öztürk

[edit]
Sağra Öztürk (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)

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources in the article, the first is simply a stat page from the Turkish Football Federation, whilst the second and third sources are a couple of brief paragraphs. I see the odd mention of her name, but there is nothing approaching the level of significant, independant coverage required for GNG.
This is unsurprising, there is almost no situation where a 16 year old footballer, of any gender, playing in an amateur, third-tier, regional competition who has not been capped at a senior international level would have attracted GNG-level coverage. It is perhaps telling, re the notability of this level of competition, that none of the clubs competing at this level have their own article.
@Hmlarson: you state she meets GNG, could you please help by noting what sources you have found that provide this level of coverage. I cannot find them myself, though am perhaps hampered by the language barrier. Fenix down (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When WP:NFOOTY excludes even a basic listing of top-tier women's football leagues around the world in their notability essay, it is completely unreliable for women's football ... even if this particular player doesn't play in a top-tier league. WP:GNG (a guideline, not essay) is met by a couple of the existing references. I see plenty more in a US-based Google search. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. How long have women been playing in Turkey? There is a wiki article about it if you want to read it. Hmlarson (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Further, this is an encyclopedia where people come to read and learn about topics they may be unfamiliar with. It really has little to do with WP:FOOTY (men's football) as it excludes a significant percentage of women footballers around the world, doesn't it? Hmlarson (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what you are talking about. I'm not sure why the length of time women have been playing football in Turkey is of relevence to this AfD, a subject is notable or not, its age is irrelevant. NFOOTY is relevant as she is not a senior international but my focus was on GNG. You seem to be avoiding my request to show sources provide Significant coverage: coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail, and is more than a trivial mention. (as specifically required by GNG). The sources in the article are at best a paragraph on her and at worst a mere mention of her name:
  1. TFF - stat page from Turkish Football Federation, not relevant for GNG.
  2. bizimyaka.com - very brief article on the U15 team, not specifically on this player. Ozturk is mentioned once by name, no further content on this player within
  3. mavikocaeli.com.tr - general article on girls football covering a number of topics. Ozturk is covered in one sentence only which I believe notes she scored in the first minute. No further content within.
  4. ozgurkocaeli.com.tr - very brief 69 word article on the player, not "significant coverage" per GNG.
  5. haberturk.com - this is a routine match report on the U17 team as a whole. Ozturk is mentioned once by name, with no significant comment.
Can you please help me understand what I am missing here and why these equate to GNG? I don't see any indication of articles dedicated to her, interviews with her, career summaries. I'm struggling to even find a quote from here. Like I said above though, that may be the language barrier and I am happy to change my vote if you can show significant coverage, but all I am seeing is the briefest of mentions. Fenix down (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Context. It requires more versatile thought than adhering to a stale and severely outdated notability guideline that largely focuses on white men. Here's another one:
I don't have the time to focus on this right now - but it looks like there are more from a Google search based in the United States - not Turkey. Hmlarson (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. How is GNG focussed largely on white men? We're not talking about NFOOTY here, though you might want to have a look at WP:FPL again and get your facts right. 51% of the countries mentioned are populated in the majority by non-white people (though god know's why you are now bringing race into this argument).
  2. You're right, that is brief, she is mentioned in three short sentences at the end, the rest is about the U17 team as a whole. I still don't see anything that is not trivial, nor do I see anything in the article that is not really contained within source 4 above which is a very similar team announcement content-wise.
  3. If media coverage about even top-tier female athletes around the world is often brief, does this not make a point about notability in the real world? It's not Wikipedia's job to correct this by lowering the requirements of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that NFOOTY is largely irrelevant to women's football? That guideline with it's perpetually incomplete notability essay which you appear to closely monitor and edit is what the editor who created this AFD is citing. Hmlarson (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NFOOTY is a subject-specific guideline. I feel it is very relevant to football in general as it sets in stone that regardless of gender all senior international footballers are deemed notable. The fully professional element is far from perfect, but no one has come up with a better alternative. The whole "top division players are notable" is a repeated non-starter for obvious and oft-repeated reasons. Whilst women's football is growing in popularity, it is an undeniable fact that, bar a few pockets, it is, on a global level, significantly less popular in terms of the audience and coverage it attracts than the men's game. That may well change in the course of time, but at the moment, that is the state of play.
That being the case, we are only left with GNG, which is the leading guideline anyway. The fact that the editor only cited NFOOTY by no means restricts the discussion simply to that, GNG discussion is always part of any AfD by definition. In terms of monitoring WP:FPL, I don't believe I have never added any content, I have only ever removed unsourced claims or sourced claims which have not previously been discussed on the talk page and consensus achieved, though I'm not really sure why any of this is relevant, we are talking solely about GNG in this instance.Fenix down (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should be aware that there is no obligation either to place templates on a page or Prod and article before taking it to AfD, in fact prodding should only really be used if the prodder feels the article deletion won't be contested. Additionally, per this it is only noted as coutrteous to inform article creators, it is not an obligation. You are right though that the article creator should be invited to participate, I have left a note at their talk page. Fenix down (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hi there again FD! My question was for the nominating editor, but thanks! Hmlarson (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying above and saw the comment. Looking at it though it does seem a bit officious, sorry about that. At least the article creator is informed though. Fenix down (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:43, 8 October 2016 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sağra_Öztürk&oldid=1068842326"