Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artūrs Strautiņš


 * 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. Discussion is based mainly around whether some of the non-English language sources are reliable, and nobody can work that out as they can't read them properly. There is some indication he meets the SNG, and a reasonable possibility he meets the GNG, so a delete close would seem wrong. Closing as keep would be problematic too for the reasons above, hence a no-consensus close. Ged UK  12:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Artūrs Strautiņš

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: Is not a member of the first team, has played a total of 5 minutes over his career in the first division. In effect he's a 16 year-old youth team player, maybe talented but that's not particularly relevant. Has virtually no coverage between stats on the league's page and other specialised websites, none of it in depth (and not a lot independent) ArmstrongJulian (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)--ArmstrongJulian (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  14:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant independent coverage. Only source is team's website.Jakejr (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Keep Independent coverage and being a member of the first team are totally irrelevant. It only natters if he played a game in Italian league or not. If he did, then he meets notability. It seems a lot of editors here are not following site guidelines perhaps some people should be reported for that?Bluesangrel (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Two weeks and nobody has explained how this meets WP:GNG, which trumps any SNG, which nobody has argued it meets either. And this article is a stub no less. Per WP:WHYN guideline: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." Granted, I might not find these on English websites, and also wouldn't know which ones are reliable. This is the difficulty with dealing with potentially notable subjects covered in predominantly non-English sources. From what I can gather from Google translate, the sources are either not WP:INDEPENDENT or WP:ROUTINE game coverage with trivial mention of his name. Moreover, no persuasive arguments have been forthcoming either. No prejudice to recreate if there is later evidence that a substantial article can be written.—Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Striking in light of new sources. I don't have time to do a full assessment to offer a keep at this point.—Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep This player has appeared in three Lega Basket Serie A games, a league listed at WP:NBASKETBALL, and appeared in two Latvian League games in 2013–14. I have expanded it a tad, although there is very little on this player. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Always good to WP:PRESERVE where possible, but that can be done through WP:USERFY if someone is interested. Your observation that "there is very little on this player" indicates that GNG should be considered over SNG.—Bagumba (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, no doubt, and I'm obviously in the minority. However, when I pass by an article such as this one where there was little to no detail, I would first research and check the player out to get a better understanding, rather than automatically flagging it for deletion. Putting articles up for deletion on the spot because they look not notable is easy – I had a quick Google search and found a few things, which was also quite simple. But again, there is not a bucket load of sources, so my "keep" vote will likely mean nothing in the end. I just hope my efforts are taken into consideration at least. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't meet GNG as near as I can tell. I do think the language barrier may be a slight issue, but I agree with Bagumba on that. Rikster2 (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - changing vote to Keep based on new sources from Zagalego. Rikster2 (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I definitely can't speak for Latvian, but at least in Italian there are barely more sources than in English, haven't found one which is in depth either. The guy's sixteen really, I don't know know how good the Latvian league is but I doubt it's the same level as the Lithuanian league, in the Italian league he's only played garbage time. Maybe he has a bright future but for now he doesn't have a place on wikipedia, the article creator was just filling in the red links of Pallacanestro Reggiana (as with Pechacek and Pini). ArmstrongJulian talk (not at home so can't log in). --213.174.123.195 (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The player has played in the Italian League. Top pro league of Italy in several games. From site guidelines that automatically qualifies as notable. I am having difficulty understanding the argument as to why then the article does not meet notability requirement, when Wikipedia itself states that it does. If someone, like Bagumba, an admin can explain this, then please do so. Because this is very confusing. Are you saying that if I make an article, now even though it meets site guidelines as stated by the site itself, it still can be deleted for lack of notability? I don't understand how this works. It makes no sense anymore.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are commons questions. WP:NSPORTS states that meeting the guideline means the subject "is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia."  Some are saying that they believe this is one of the minority cases where it is not "likely" to meet WP:GNG.  Note that NSPORTS also says "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind ..."  It's ok if we all have different opinions, as the closer will determine WP:CONSENSUS.  Hope that helps.—Bagumba (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But in other words, if I was to make an article for a player that is worthy, and I know they are worthy of an article, and they meet site criteria as outlined, then you are saying all anyone has to do is nominate it for deletion and then a few people can say they do not think it is worthy and it can be deleted? This is very hard to make someone want to keep writing new articles, because if you are making ones especially for European players, almost all editors in USA don't know anything about them, and usually will say they are not notable. I know that because I remember a discussion earlier on delete about this article Georgios Tsalmpouris. The article did not meet site guidelines, and no I did not make it either. I never make an article that does not meet the criteria as I see what it states, and yes I read it. It was not my article, but I defended some comments made that said the player was someone no one heard of and was completely of no note and etc. Was not true at all. Very well known player and of plenty of note as a young talent in Europe. Then already signed with a Eurocup club right after the article was deleted, which showed that actually deleting the article was wrong. So going by editor's feeling or sense was wrong in that case. Thought I had no issue with it, because it was right decision by site rules. But do you see what I am saying? Why make the rules and guidelines if editor's feelings and opinions can simply override them? Often they are wrong anyway, no matter what kind of discussion there is. I remember actually also a few other similar discussions of players like this, even more better examples, where the players were actually playing in Euroleague teams, and the editors in discussions wanted them deleted. I just can't remember the articles. I remember that one because it was recent. But the point is that this makes it hard for people trying to create an article for a European player. It is sending confusing info. Because for me, I always try to be very careful not to make any article in biography unless it is qualified. So these kind of delete discussions like this one here, would make me think now I might have to stop creating articles in some cases, even though they should be maybe created.Bluesangrel (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "... all anyone has to do is nominate it for deletion and then a few people can say they do not think it is worthy and it can be deleted.: You are assuming bad faith that someone just goes around maliciously trying to annoy people. While some people do, the fact that Wikipedia relies on consensus keeps things honest.  If any of us wants full control,  this really isn't the site to be involved with, because it is inherently team based.—Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that editors can make and do make mistakes. Noting more than that. That is why the site has guidelines set to follow, and I think the playing games in top professional Italian League is one guideline that should be followed.Bluesangrel (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep He's very young, but he's played for a decent team in Italy, and appears to be one of the better prospects in a country that actually cares about basketball. I'm not the best judge of European sources, but I did find this, and this, at least. This also seems to indicate that other coverage exists somewhere. I realize I don't have an airtight argument, but overall, I wouldn't be too concerned if we kept this article. Zagal e jo^^^ 08:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Using the refs Zagalejo provided, I have expanded the article even further. It is surely decent enough now; it has multiple secondary sources and consists of fairly detailed content. I hadn't even thought to check if Strautiņš had Sportando coverage the first time I went through, but seeing how he does, I think the article scrapes though GNG with the listed secondary sources and the player's Sportando coverage. DaHuzyBru (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Week keep A promising young talent, Zagalejo pulled up sources to establish that he meets GNG. He also played a couple of games in the Italian Serie A, which passes NBASKETBALL. Like I have said previously, sources don't need to be in English. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 19:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone here contended that they had to be. However, I'll caution that Google Translate can't tell an Englsh speaker if the source is reliable or not.  There's already enough suspect English blogs (generally speaking, not specific to this article) that people try to push off as reliable.—Bagumba (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have worded that better. The sources dont strike me as being unreliable, but I'm no expert. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 23:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If we are talking about Sportando, ESPN and Yahoo US regularly get their sports news from Sportando, as it relates to European basketball. So it is considered extremely reliable. One of most in all of sports world. Actually, I will be surprised if anyone does not know it, considering it has everything also in English.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Following the criteria in other sports, he has played at least one game in a fully professional league, so that means the article has enough notability. And he is 16; if the article is deleted, probably it will be created again later. Asturkian (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced for all that matters, are we really putting the bar so low that a handful of articles from possibly unreliable websites is enough to confer notability? By the way, Sportando is as unreliable a source as I've seen, despite the bull stated above, they produce next to no original content just pilfer other sources (reliable or not) sometimes just a copy and paste job. It's a bit of a sham it gets used as much, the only reason is they do a slightly improved google translate of the plagiarized articles. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then ESPN and Yahoo can't be used as sources either, because as I said, they often cite it as a source, and often get their news about European basketball signings from it, for players coming and going to NBA also.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Meeting the GNG is more important than the SNG and routine sports reporting does not meet WP:GNG. In addition, the sources mentioned above relate to him competing in under 16 and under 17 tournaments and junior events don't show notability.Jakejr (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2015 (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.