Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ömer Aysan Barış


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The trend of the discussion was toward Keep, with participants judging that the cumulative coverage is enough for notability. RL0919 (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ömer Aysan Barış

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Oppose Draft, its just a back door to deletion and there is no excuse to keep poorly sourced BLPs. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  06:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Turkey. AllyD (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I found ("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"),,  (which gives a lot of background info on him),  ("WHO IS OMER AYSAN?... Despite working on the right of the defense, he... has made a name for himself with the support he gives to the attack and the thrusts he makes"),  ("Bursaspor football player Ömer Aysan Barış draws attention with his outstanding performance in the last three games he played after a long period of injury... has a big share in Bursaspor team getting 9 points in three games"),  , , ,  ,  , and consistent coverage from Hurriyet, Turkey's most widely circulated newspaper (not to mention most of the sports websites and other newspapers), among any any more Turkish sources (including probable offline ones). He is a clear topic of interest in Turkish football with extensive career including 100+ appearances in the elite level of football (Turkish Super Lig is considered a top 10 league in Europe. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a "yes" to The one question.  Article needs improvement, not deletion. Regarding most of the consistent pro-deletion users, I dont understand why they spend all their effort deleting other peoples honest hard work instead of improving them, especially most pro-deletion users I have encountered who have a double standard where they either support SNG where the article doesn't need to meet WP:GNG or have sometimes created articles of people with less coverage than this one. (I support article creation, but many pro-deletion users double standard is very frustrating). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Source eval:
 * Interview primary, doesn't show N ::
 * Q & A Interview, doesn't show N ::
 * Promo about a wedding. Subject is primary source for article ::
 * ROUTINE sports promo piece ::
 * Promo, subject is source for article ::
 * Puff piece about subject and girlfriend ::
 * Interview, ROUTINE sports promo piece ::
 * ROUTINE puff piece after a game ::
 * All ROUTINE news stories, which use the subject as either a partial or full source for information. Nothing that show IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  20:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the sources do have secondary coverage (from source 1: "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", source 3 gives a lot of background info on him (not only is the source about his wedding, the mayor honored him, also the fact that his wedding is covered by national news websites shows his notability in Turkey), from source 4: "WHO IS OMER AYSAN?... Despite working on the right of the defense, he... has made a name for himself with the support he gives to the attack and the thrusts he makes", from source 4: "Bursaspor football player Ömer Aysan Barış draws attention with his outstanding performance in the last three games he played after a long period of injury" etc etc). Secondly, For some backwards reason the focus is always on deletion rather than improvement, (but, I hear you say, isn't the whole point of editing Wikipedia to delete others articles?) but 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 above WP:WIKILAWYERING a moot point". Thirdly, every deletion editor's entire arguments is basically repeating "everything is routine" (clearly not true) or "deletion because the "law" said so" (again, Wikilawyering) without thinking about why the "law" exists in the first place...  the reason the secondary source "law" exists is objectivity, which this article does anyways... if a fair amount of independent, reliable sources, primary or secondary, can produce an objective factual decent sized article about a clear topic of interest (he received consistent coverage from Hurriyet, Turkey's most widely circulated newspaper), there's no logical reason it should be deleted at all (Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a "yes" to The one question). Lastly, I find it incredibly ironic that most pro-deletion users I have encountered (who tend to regard the page of e.g. some youth soccer coach with no sources online who created his own Wikipedia page the same as a the page of a seasoned elite-level footballer with many sources created by a Wikipedia editor who thought them notable enough to warrant a page) have a double standard where they either support SNG where the article doesn't need to meet WP:GNG or have created articles of people with less coverage than this one. In your case, your most recent article is about a current Ukrainian photographer whose birth date is unknown and basically only has primary sources online...  (which I am fine with, but trying to delete others articles with much more sources of any kind while creating those kinds of articles truly boggles the mind). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly passes GNG, significant coverage that clearly shohws noteability.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 11:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sources identified above generally do not count towards satisfying WP:GNG. The TFF is not independent of Aysan, and many of the other articles are Q&A interviews or brief match reports (like the beinsports piece). The haber3 article is gossip. I disagree with Timothy about the Kocaeli Gazetsi wedding announcement; it's clear that Aysan wasn't the source of the article, and it's notable that a MP, Fatma Kaplan Hürriyet, gave him an honor at the event. Also, the Kayseri Haber article is relatively good, although a bit short. I'll see if I can find something else. Jogurney (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak delete - I've looked as carefully as I can, and can't find enough in-depth coverage in WP:SIRS to meet the GNG. It appears that Aysan was fairly successful early in his career (particularly while at Bursaspor) so maybe there is better coverage from the early 2000's that is archived somewhere. However, the later portion of his career wasn't very noteworthy (some misfortunate with Ankaraspor being dismissed from the league during the 2009–10 season, and injuries following his move to Trabzonspor) which shows as the coverage is routine (injury announcements, match reports, transfer announcements). I think the 2 sources I mentioned above are close to SIGCOV, but not nearly enough. Jogurney (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , my rationale here should push him from a weak delete to at least a weak keep. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , Per Isaacl, the secondary coverage in his TFF interview is clearly factual. Also, sure, the Turkish Football Federation interviewed an assistant referee (probably for variety), but I would be very surprised if most of the players they interviewed are not notable to some extent. Looking at a page of player interviews, I found essentially all of the interviews were with significant players who made over 100+ games in Süper Lig (and the one that didn't made 50+ appearances). 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. On top of that, with common sense, all the other points I make in the rationale should easily push him from a weak delete to at least a weak keep. If not, there are more points I will make. Das osmnezz (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you posting your detailed rationale on your User page rather than here. If I understood correctly, you are making four arguments: (1) SIGCOV is met because there are 2 independent, reliable sources that contain coverage than can be combined with plenty of independent, reliable sources that contain superficial coverage in order to yield in-depth coverage; (2) while the TFF interview is not independent coverage it is a sign of notability; (3) loads of routine/trivial coverage in Turkey's newspaper of record is a sign of notability; and (4) common sense dictates that even when the GNG is not met, a footballer who has played a lot at an elite level is de facto notable.
 * I agree that I've !voted to keep articles based on rationale #1 before (they are difficult decisions). In the AfD you linked, I believed the independent, reliable sources were significantly better than the ones available here (but with hindsight I probably should have !voted weak keep in that one).
 * I disagree with rationale #2, and there is a strong consensus at WT:NSPORTS that the Federation's interview is not a sign of notability.
 * I strongly disagree with rational #3 because a footballer can easily appear in 30 matches each season, and the largest newspapers in that nation will always produce trivial coverage like match reports on all of them. So it's not the least bit surprising that a search of Hürriyet yields 100s of trivial hits.
 * Rational #4 is something I reserve for unusual situations like Articles for deletion/José Guadalupe Rubio. That case involved a pre-internet era footballer who is one of the best ever to play for a Liga MX club during its rise, and I knew the local newspaper's internet archive was malfunctioning (making access extremely difficult). I stand behind that !vote even today.
 * So, that's a long way of saying I'm comfortable with my !vote here. Jogurney (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , my Second rationale here should push him from a weak delete to at least a weak keep. Also, I disagree that a footballer can "easily appear in 30 matches each season", let alone make 170+ games in an elite level, a top 15 league in Europe. On top of that, the consistent coverage from Hurriyet, Turkey's most widely circulated newspaper are definitely not match reports, and, using common sense, a countries leading newspaper would definitely not have that much consistent coverage, however "routine", of any average footballer. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I ran that Hürriyet search for Hakan Şükür; over 10,000 results. Emre Belözoğlu; over 8,000 results. So, yes, it is easy to get loads of routine coverage in that newspaper if you are one of the highest-profile Turkish footballers, and apparently you can get a lot (over 800 hits) if you are a much lesser figure like Aysan. Jogurney (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ,, Regarding the TFF interview, looking at a page of TFF player interviews, I found essentially all of the interviews were with significant players who made over 100+ games in Süper Lig (and the one that didn't made 50+ appearances). 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. Also, the Hurriyet point above doesn't make much sense, since Hakan Şükür and Emre Belözoğlu are some of the most well known Turkish players, and for example this guy and this guy both played around the same amount of Super Lig games as Aysan, played alongside Aysan, played in the same time period, (one of them still plays, which emphasizes my point more), but have way less Hurriyet articles about them and hits compared to Aysan, so using common sense Turkeys leading newspaper clearly thought Aysan was notable enough to covering cosnsiently, routine or not. On top of that, he logically definitely has offline coverage, since there are no articles online about him from the early 2000s period when he won the Turkish Cup and received national team attention, arguably his most successful period. I also disagree that a footballer can "easily appear in 30 matches each season", let alone make 170+ games in an elite level, a top 15 league in Europe. I also disagree that the other independent reliable sources besides the "good" ones you mentioned aren't adequate (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability), since they clearly emphasize his notability (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" etc). Even besides all that above, my Second rationale here should push him from a weak delete to at least a weak keep. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Timothy and Jogurney. Aintabli (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: One more go... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Das osmnezz with regards to the references. Part of the problem with the new lack of notability guidelines is that you get major players for top teams in big leagues, who don't get a lot of English-language press - and it's hard to find good Turkish archives for this long ago (we are finding stuff, but they aren't exactly the big papers that aren't archived freely online) - though that observation doesn't help us here. In addition to what was in the article, he was quoted internationally after a famous 2011 match ... which is the kind of thing that could cause people to want to know who he is; I've added to the article, including references to The Seattle Times, The Guardian, and a book. There's an indication in the book that there's a Telegraph article as well, but I don't have access. These 3 (or 4) references don't advance a GNG claim in themselves; but we have a heck of lot of reporting still available online for this prolific player. Nfitz (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per the sources presented by Das osmnezz. I disagree with TimothyBlue's source analysis; there is enough secondary, non-interview, content in the sources that allow the subject to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, the latter saying if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.  Frank   Anchor  18:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The sourcing provided by Das osmnezz is sufficient to pass GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources currently in the article pass GNG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly pasess GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Striking double vote SWinxy (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, pasess notability --Shotgun pete (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hurriyet did run this story about him, with a small amount of independent analysis. Yes, this is largely derived from Haber61 but it's a reliable and independent source. Kayseri News has some good coverage towards the end, albeit brief. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I looked through the sources and they were mostly surface-level, not in depth as required by both WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. (Also the Internet Archive citation is somehow wrong; it references p262 when there are only 260 pages.) SWinxy (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See Frank Anchors response above ("there is enough secondary, non-interview, content in the sources that allow the subject to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, the latter saying if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability") and also see my my first rationale and second rationale. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.