Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Karnapoğlu


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Ali Karnapoğlu

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

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Karnapoğlu has had a very short-lived professional career (only appearing in 1 Turkish top division match). The only online English and Turkish-language coverage is trivial, including transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, transfer coverage goes beyond routine and talks about his career, I think it passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep He played for Trabzonspor (Although it was just one appearance). Some coverage also found 1, 2. Fifthapril (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, those articles are not in-depth coverage. Jogurney (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Scoring goals is routine, winning matches is routine, winning tournaments is routine, transferring is routine, retiring is routine, getting a red card is routine, getting a yellow card is routine, at this rate most football biographies are gonna be deleted and the only ones that are gonna be kept are going to be footballers who did something noteworthy outside of football. I feel like there needs to be some football. I see that there are specific guidelines for American football that says players are presumed notable if they have played in matches in the top level league in their country, why aren't there guidelines like that for soccer/football? Gazozlu (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Where do you see that gridiron presumes notability? It is not even covered on NSPORT. And to your main point: yes, we should be deleting the vast majority of footballers if the totality of their coverage is refactored transactional announcements and recaps of their gameplay that don't go into any breadth and depth as to why they are important. JoelleJay (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry It was rugby not american football that states that notability is presumed for having appeared in a top tier match. American Football might have been deleted entirely from the guideline. As was Football (soccer).
 * Essentially what the notability guidenlines stated is:
 * Significant coverage is likely to exist for association football (soccer) figures if they meet the following:
 * 1. Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in, any Tier 1 International Match as defined by FIFA, or in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA.
 * 1. Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.
 * Note: For the purposes of this guideline, "played" means having appeared in a match either in the starting lineup or coming on as a substitute. Youth players, or players at the Olympics, are not presumed notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:NBASIC.
 * And WP:NFOOTY was a redirect to that. However someone deleted that paragraph in the current version. Gazozlu (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you aren't aware of the massive RfC that deprecated participation-based criteria for sportspeople. We're still working out the other sports on NSPORT, but the entirety of NFOOTY was removed because consensus was that it did not predict GNG reliably at all. JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw some talk about it here and there. But I really don't understand the point in all this discussion about specific notability sections for specific things if every single one of those sections still comes down to needing to establish significant coverage anyway. Gazozlu (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Coverage is terrible. 1: name in a list ❌; 2: utterly routine transfer announcement ❌; 3: stats database ❌; 4: another routine transfer announcement ❌; 5: single-sentence transfer announcement ❌; 6: literally just quotes him ❌; 7: routine transfer coverage ❌. Nothing remotely approaching GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything in the scope of football coverage is always utterly routine. At that rate there would only be articles on players like Christian Eriksen who experienced a cardiac arrest during a match. Gazozlu (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Using this logic, everything on Wikipedia is routine. The sun's routine, the sky's routine, what isn't routine?--Ortizesp (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think there really should be a Football specific notability guide, as I see there are for other sports. I am seeing many sources being perhaps too liberally being considered as routine. Gazozlu (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's be serious please. It's incredibly simple to find in-depth coverage of footballers who have significant achievements or attract a lot of attention. Just scrolling through the first page of the BBC's Women's football website section provides this in-depth piece on Ellen White. Unlike Karnapoğlu, she is the subject of more than just routine coverage. Jogurney (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There was also a lot of significant coverage of Christian Eriksen before the heart issue. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well ofcourse, he's been on the main national team since 2010, and also played for AFC Ajax then. Gazozlu (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously a record scorer of a national team at the end of their career will plenty of articles like that written about them. That's not a good example. Gazozlu (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it not a good example? My point is that actually notable (those with important achievements) footballers will easily pass the GNG. Non-notable ones like Karnapoğlu will not. Jogurney (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a bad example because she's not the average notable footballer. A good example is an average example. Einstein is not a useful example for notability of a scientist for example, for obvious reasons. Gazozlu (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "average footballers" are simply not notable? Carlos Fenoy is an article I started last month on a former footballer who was relatively famous in Spain, but he never played at international level. Still, it was quite easy to find SIGCOV. Footballers who only make a single appearance in a top league (like Karnapoğlu) just don't get that kind of coverage, and don't merit an article under Wikipedia policy. Jogurney (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's also a bad example. Fenoy is relatively famous in Spain and has had a long career in the Spanish top level league. A good example would be a non-famous player with little coverage that is notable. Gazozlu (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How is a "non-famous player with little coverage" ever notable? We don't want articles on those players! JoelleJay (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fame =/= notability. That is the challenge of finding a good example, players that are notable but not in any overwhelmingly obvious ways. Gazozlu (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - Althugh some of the coverage is routine, there is enough other coverage that goes beyond routine. These go beyond a mere mention of transfer but provides enough background information about Karnapoğlu, and are also in reliable sources.--Gazozlu (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. JoelleJay provides good source analysis which I agree with. There is not enough of significance to prove the player meets GNG. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2022 (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.