Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaan Kevser-Junior

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 keep. ✗plicit 12:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaan Kevser-Junior

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable footballer; fails WP:GNG and barely passes WP:NFOOTY, having played for five minutes in just one game that meets the criteria.

See source assessment table for a review of all coverage, either in the article or identifiable through a news search.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/sport/football/crawley-town-snap-up-young-midfielder-3408606	Most content consists of quotes from Crawley		The only independent statements are that he has been training with the club since the start of the 2021-2022 season, and that he has been named as a substitute for a game	✘ No
https://www.crawleytownfc.com/news/2021/october/reds-sign-kaan-kevser-junior/	Published by Crawley			✘ No
https://ajansspor.com/haber/17-yasindaki-turk-oyuncu-hedeflerini-acikladi-584914	Consists entirely of quotes from Kevser-Junior	?	?	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/kaan-kevser-junior/793165/			Database	✘ No
https://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=145212			Database	✘ No
https://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/19628350.crawley-town-sign-promising-midfielder-kaan-kevser-junior/	~ Mostly consists of quotes from Crawley		Only coverage that could count is a single sentence stating "The midfielder has joined the Reds on a two-year deal with an option of a third-year after impressing during training with the club", which is not sufficient	✘ No
https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/player-seals-agreement-to-sign-for-crawley-town/		?	Says little beyond that Kevser-Junior has signed with Crawley, and speculation that he will be "delighted" with this.	✘ No
https://www.newschainonline.com/sport/mens-sport/football/josh-andrews-misses-out-through-injury-as-rochdale-host-crawley-229082		?	Only mention of Kevser-Junior is "New signing Kaan Kevser-Junior could also feature after playing five minutes from the bench in their midweek Papa John’s Trophy game."	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He passes NFOOTY, and there is generally more leniency over GNG for players active in their careers. I would argue the Ajansspor reference contributes towards GNG - the argument made that it is not independent is moot as it's an interview, and its an RS and constitutes SIGCOV. We're probably shy of a second reference which would be nice, but there is consensus for active players to be given more leniency at AfD - see Joakim Balmy, Shinji Yamada, Mikołaj Kwietniewski. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be considered SIGCOV, but what WP:GNG requires is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; an article that consists only of direct quotes is not "independent of the subject". And he passes WP:NFOOTY by playing for five minutes in a single tier four game; it's not a strong argument. BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY, and has an active career in a league that gets significant attention.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NSPORT, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Further, WP:CRYSTAL applies to the prediction that he will receive coverage in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the assessment in the source table. this, this, and this all count as WP:SIGCOV as they are articles that focus on the player. Meets WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The independent coverage for each of those sources can be summarized as:
Two sentences, mostly basic information that is duplicated across each of the articles, is not WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am confused, from what I see that's a very low bar towards WP:NFOOTBALL, I wasn't pass it. I don't really see GNG at this either. More WP:ROUTINE news if anything. Govvy (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per MA. Young player with ongoing career. Giant Snowman 11:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine and non-independent coverage is not the thing passing GNG is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only meets NFOOTBALL, also meets GNG with sources above. Poor nomination. Nfitz (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2022 (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.