Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emre Can


 * 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 Wily D  10:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Emre Can

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested prod. Non-notable footballer who has yet to play in a fully-professional league. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else. Specs112   t   c  17:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 19:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * keep Actually, does *not* fail WP:GNG. Did any of you look for sources? (removed 1) ; ; that's just a few minutes of searching. He may not pass WP:NFOOTBALL, but there are dozens of articles, in english and turkish and german, written *about* him. How is that not WP:GNG?? --KarlB (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your first source refers to a different Emre. How many of those articles consist of significant coverage? All I've seen are a few name checks and routine hype about a youth player who's yet to actually achieve anything of note. This article should be re-created if and when the player makes his way into the first team. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the first source was my mistake. But how do you define significant coverage? The two articles linked above are *about* him. Here's another one - fully *about* him ; here's another one . How do you define significant coverage? I know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but look at the keep votes on this guy Articles for deletion/Henry Oxley, who still doesn't have a single source even comparable to the easy sources we can find on Emre Can. So I guess I'm confused - what exactly about his coverage is not GNG?--KarlB (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - while the article fails NFOOTBALL, it is close to satisfying the GNG. My concern is that the coverage dedicated to this player is almost entirely about his potential and his future, and far less about his actual accomplishments (although there is discussion of his U17 national team and Bayern reserve performances). I don't think he's notable enough - just yet. Jogurney (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks; can you tell me what about ; ; ; is not considered "significant coverage in reliable sources" - these are all articles about him, in 3rd party sources. I think there's a serious double standard at work here; GNG is discarded when the player hasn't reached a high-enough level, then the same GNG is used to defend the most specious of sources on players that have played one game in a big league.--KarlB (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I grant he doesn't meet NFOOTBALL, but the first and last of Karl.brown's cites just above (mercafutbol, sportbild) seem to me to reach WP:GNG, with the other sources providing a bit of additional "margin".  --j⚛e deckertalk 04:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Per Decker and Brown.  I think the sources presented suggest he meets notability standards under GNG and will likely have more very shortly. --LauraHale (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 5.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  20:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per j⚛e decker and there is coverage of him on the Internet so i say keep. Kante4 (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - as noted above, meets WP:GNG. Last time I checked, it doesn't matter if it fails WP:FOOTY if it meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's irrelevant that he fails NFOOTY because he passes GNG – "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" – as shown by the the sources Karl has provided. Jenks24 (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2012 (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.