User:Das osmnezz/rationale

First rationale
Besides/on top of the "good" sources you mentioned, some of the independent "routine" sources go into his background (e.g. "Despite working on the right of the defense, he is a name that has made a name for himself with the support he gives to the attack and the thrusts he makes", "After Ankaraspor's relegation, the player who was left vacant was transferred when Trabzonspor made an offer and wore the burgundy-blue jersey. He signed a 3-year contract with Trabzonspor on October 22, 2009. He started football with Kocaelispor on 31.10.1999. He played his first official match with Kocaelispor on 22.12.2000", etc ),

and while the in-depth TFF interview may not be independent of Aysan, the player clearly has to be notable in Turkey to have an in-depth TFF interview. This interview even contains some independent coverage like "Since the day he first played in Kocaelispor, he has distinguished himself with his quickness and shooting abilities. Although he wore Bursaspor and Ankaraspor jerseys, he made the real leap in Trabzonspor. He suffered from playing in different positions in the past, but now he has established his football identity as a typical right-back. The boy who is in love with football, who takes the soccer ball under his quilt so that he does not get cold, and walks on the street with cleats, continues to keep the same love alive in his heart as an experienced player today". He is clearly notable to warrant this secondary and primary coverage from the TFF, not to mention this in-depth newspaper interview going through his entire life up to then.

As per WP:BIO and Frank Anchor in another discussion, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. You seemed to used this in Articles for deletion/Abdoulaye Ndiaye (footballer), and this case makes even more sense, considering the fact that Ömer Aysan Barış has had an extensive career at elite level and is clearly a topic of interest.

As GiantSnowman stated in a different AfD, a statement I have modified for this article, Ömer Aysan Barış should be kept "Per COMMONSENSE ...A quick Google search brings up thousands of results, including this (not to mention consistent coverage from Hurriyet, Turkey's most widely circulated newspaper), which confirms 170+ games at the elite level (how you described the Russian league, and the Turkish Super Lig is clearly regarded as elite - see, and, both of which were published at when he was playing in the Super Lig). The topic is clearly notable".

Even besides/on top of the factors above, even you said there are good sources and that its "notable that a MP, Fatma Kaplan Hürriyet, gave him an honor" and that "Aysan was fairly successful early in his career... so maybe there is better coverage from the early 2000's that is archived somewhere".

Secondrationale
Pre-statement: I spent hours doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". As one user stated in another deletion discussion, "expansion... renders the... WP:WIKILAWYERING a moot point".

Main statement - Common sense vs Circular reasoning:

Using the general non-Wikipedia definition of notability, Ömer Aysan Barış was a clearly notable figure in Turkish football who won Turkish Cup and played 170+ times in one of Europe's top 15 best leagues, emphasized by coverage and the fact that he was honored by the MP (Fatma Kaplan Hürriyet, who has their own wiki page) of a province (Kocaeli) with 2+ million people (I mean, how many footballers does that kinda thing happen to?)...

(ironically, the nominator, Timothy, stated in a keep vote in a different discussion which could also apply to this discussion, that the objections "are absurd... and ignoring the overall context". - in this case the overall context is that if we step back from our pedantic, Wikilawyering lens Aysan was a clearly notable figure in Turkish football, and even with a Wikipedia lens, he clearly meets notability, as I explain below ).

As for Notability in the English Wikipedia, it is "an attempt to assess whether the topic has "gained sufficiently significant attention... as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic".

The key word is as evidenced by... and, according to the WP:Independent sources, the point of that "evidence" (why we use secondary sources) is to protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an ax to grind".

This comprehensive article about a clearly notable figure in Turkish football with secondary and primary coverage clearly does not have any of the above and is clearly written "from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an ax to grind".

The information cited from primary sources in this article like "Aysan was born and raised in Kocaeli, where he started playing football, before enrolling in a Kocaeli football school and joining the youth academy of Gölcükspor, where he started his senior career", "As a teenager, he experienced the 1999 İzmit earthquake, which caused him and his family to temporarily live in tents", and "At the beginning of his career, he was mainly deployed as a left-back before he started being deployed more as a right-back as his career progressed" is cleary factual (like why would he lie about it - again, context), objective, and definitely not promotional.

Using common sense, the entire deletion argument - delete since not notable in Wikipedia terms since sources since not notable in Wikipedia terms since sources - is circular reasoning, because this article fulfills the reason for why Wikipedia recommends tons of secondary sources in the first place, thus in turn meets Wikipedias definition of notability. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is an emphatic "yes" to The one question.

As one user said, deletionists "have their noses so far into the policies that they can only see them in black and white... there is color, nuance, and even gray areas... Our policies... are not supposed to be rigid".

The rules are principles, Five pillars, and Policies and guidelines clearly state "Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; rules have... exceptions" and "They [the "laws"] must be understood in context, using... common sense and discretion".

All this above should push him from a weak delete to at least a weak keep.