Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abneet Bharti

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. Obviously, there is no clear agreement on whether the sources about this individual are sufficient as far as WP:GNG is concerned. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abneet Bharti[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was PROD'd and then PROD was removed by User:Inter&anthro with reason: "although the article does not pass WP:NFOOTY, it could arguably pass WP:GNG." I don't believe this article does pass those two at all.

First off, WP:NFOOTY is surely not passed since Bharti has never appeared in a match between two fully professional teams. For WP:GNG, the articles used as references in the article come from SportsKeeda (a lot of them come from here), HardTackle, and Khel which are, in my opinion, not reliable sources and just general blog articles. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP:GNG This player is a very notable athlete both in his home country and the country where his playing. He is currently suffering from an long injury and therefore he hasn't made any appearance. He was recently also nominated as one of the best young players in Asia by Calcio Mercato, which is a reliable source. Here is the link: http://www.calciomercato.com/en/news/an-xi-of-the-best-u20-asian-players-in-the-world-73344 . If there are some changes to be made, they can be surely made. However, to just delete this page because of someone thinks he has not notable is not appropriate. He is also just 19 year old so I am confident he could pass WP:GNG since he is well known both in Nepal and India, he also has been notably commented upon by couple of reliable sources, which are mentioned in the page. Aksportpro (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence article subject passes WP:NFOOTY, the guideline for the inclusion of notable football players. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nominator fails to mention that there are plenty of non-blog sources in the article, such as this from IBT Times and this from Yahoo Sports. This source as well is pretty in-depth. With such varied coverage I believe WP:GNG is met. WP:NFOOTY is a guideline in hope of achieving WP:GNG, not an either/or so I disagree with Optakeover's opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have concerns about the sourcing in this article. I don't know how football journalism in India works, but a lot of the references cited look like sports blogs or otherwise questionable sources (see Talk:Sportskeeda). There does seem to be some significant coverage, but it's weak. Jay eyem (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - glad it's agreed he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, the issue is therefore WP:GNG - which I don't think he meets. Yes there's lots out there but it's not significant/from good sources. Not enough. Giant Snowman 07:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fails NFOOTY, but passes wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the following sources amongst others:

first post - lengthy article on the player
IB Times - lengthy rticle on the player that goes beyond routine transfer speculation.
goal.com - article on the player
feverpitch.in - further lengthy coverage of the player.

Would be useful to hear from editors above as to why these sources, many of which are already in the article (and Inter&anthro notes at least one more above) are no good. I'm not seeing a series of wordpress blogs, nor am I seeing simple routine transfer talk and hype (though there is also a lot of that too as can be seen in the article. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG by not being the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources independent both of each other and of the subject. It's very easy for the player's representative to get stuff into online media: that particular representative's website mentions media exposure on their about page. They also mention sportskeeda, a self-publishing site, as one of the websites they use: the Yahoo Sports piece mentioned by Inter&anthro above is taken from and credited to sportskeeda. The firstpost.com and IB Times pieces are the same article as each other: firstpost.com acknowledges it as a press release. That doesn't constitute GNG.
What ought to strike one as odd, for someone apparently notable, is the almost total lack of mention in mainstream media. I don't mean full-page features, but I can't find anything: no namechecks in the squad for U16/U23 matches, if he'd really been called up to those teams, nothing at all on the websites of English-language Indian newspapers with a reputation for editorial integrity, nothing on the websites of English-language Nepali newspapers... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not meet GNG. A number of the references are press releases or from sources which may not be regarded as independent or reliable. Eldumpo (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, on the basis of GNG (I know nothing of football/soccer). The IBT article pushes me from uncertain into Keep territory. It is bylined by someone who has written other articles; while similar to the firstpost.com (as Struway mentiones, labelled as a press release), it is not identical and gives the impression of the IBT author perhaps borrowing more than we'd like, but exercising his own editorial discretion. Haven't been able to load the feverpitch.in article, and wouldn't know how to evaluate it. But net net, there is enough here not clearly and unabiguously nonindependent from the subject for an article to be written. Martinp (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd probably be prepared to accept IBT as RS these days, depending on what they're writing about, but the Content quaity section of our page on the subject suggests that in 2014, which is when the article about Abneet Bharti dates from, the site was oriented towards producing high-volume clickbait rather than high-quality journalism. Just a thought... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - sources seem OK but not great. Here are two similar brief mentions in more mainstream pubs [[1]][[2]]. The uniqueness of being an Indian player in Europe tips it to the keep side for me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per TimTempleton. Sources barely adequate. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 6 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.