Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabian Benko


 * 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. The article's subject is found to lack notability. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Fabian Benko

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was prodded with the rationale "Article concerns a young footballer who fails the sport-specific notability guideline because he hasn't played in a fully professional league (the German Regionalliga isn't fully pro) or at senior international level, and about whom there's no evidence of enough significant coverage to pass the general notability guideline". Prod was removed with edit summary "Two specific articles on the subject meet WP:GNG". Personally, I can't find anything in reliable independent sources other than rehashed stories hung on quotes from his first-team manager Pep Guardiola saying he did well on the pre-season tour to China and he's going to be good but he's nowhere near ready for first-team matches. Perhaps I just don't know where to look. Struway2 (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 09:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 09:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 09:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 09:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 09:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep With the two stories,, about the subject in separate reliable sources that are independent of the subject, WP:GNG has been met. That the subject has not played in a fully professional league is immaterial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The first is a good example of the story I mentioned in my nomination statement, and is well down at the routine trivial end of coverage: more than a namecheck, but not very far. The second is a piece by a student on a website that invites people to send in articles, so wouldn't count as reliable. I don't see those as meeting GNG. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We clearly disagree, but would be happy to take them to WP:RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in either article that is so controversial that reliability need be called into question. What I do see however, is two articles building brief comments around the same quote from Guardiola. Aside from the inherent brevity of each article making it reasonable to call into question the notion of significant coverage (not to mention the logical fallacy that 2 articles = GNG), this is in fact not separate coverage, but essentially the same article, since the substance of each is the same quote from Guardiola used verbatim in each instance. A manager commenting briefly on how amazing one of the young players at his club might be at some point in the future is not significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not our job to judge the article. It's the nomintor's job to run WP:BEFORE and editors to investigate if the subject is or is not notable.
 * It took me a short time to use Google and come up with these:     and they have been added to the article as inline references. Shall I keep looking? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One thing further. he is apparently on the senior men team's roster for their champion's league matches. If he appears a a substitute during the round of 16 matches, is he notable? WP:NFOOTBALL is rubbish so I won't bother reading it. I'll take your word for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would certainly encourage you to continue searching if you are convinced of GNG. At worst, I would encourage you to re-read the sources you have presented. In your attempt to show coverage in multiple sources, what you have in fact shown is further rehashes of the same brief quotes from Guardiola:
 * ran.de - uses essentially the same quote from Guardiola, this time in German, saying We are very pleased with his performances and his attitude in training... He is a very young player of 17 years, he can improve much we have to go step by step, he trained with the first team, which is for him alone... a big step forward. but we are convinced of its class. (German: Wir sind sehr zufrieden mit seinen Auftritten und seiner Einstellung im Training... Er ist ein sehr junger Spieler. Mit 17 Jahren kann er noch vieles verbessern. Wir müssen Schritt für Schritt gehen. Er trainiert mit der ersten Mannschaft, das allein ist für ihn ein großer Schritt nach vorne. Wir sind aber von seiner Klasse überzeugt.) The wording is very slightly different from the first two sources you presented but nowhere near sufficiently so to assume this is a different quote. Either way, it says nothing new about the player.
 * sport1.de - this is simply a brief quote from Guardiola, there isn't even any analysis of it. As a quote from his manager, it is inherently WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and not useful for establishing GNG. It does not enhance notability because it says nothing more than the previous source and is so similar in content as to be essentially identical (German: Fabian Benko ist ein sehr junger Spieler. Er ist erst 17 Jahre alt. Wir sind aber von seiner Klasse überzeugt... Wir müssen Schritt für Schritt gehen. Er trainiert mit der ersten Mannschaft, das alleine ist für ihn ein großer Schritt nach vorne.)
 * eurosport.de - This is not actually about the player in question but an article on the wider Bayern youth setup. Benko is mentioned briefly with the article noting a couple of friendly appearances. This is not significant coverage, despite the fact that his name is mentioned in the headline.
 * internationalsoccerteams.com - This is just a very brief piece which is entirely speculation on what nation he might choose to represent. I don't see how content from this could provide more than a sentence in an article. Not significant coverage.
 * backofthenetfootball.com - This is not a separate source from the one you presented earlier, just posted to a different site. It is word for word identical and does not therefore support GNG.
 * bavarianfootballworks.com - This is nothing, there is essentially no content in this very brief article beyond the rhetrical question "is this guy going to be any good?" I'm not sure how this supports GNG.
 * I hope I have illustrated why simply googling someone's name is not the best way of establishing notability. Yes this is a player who is creating a reasonable amount of speculation, yes in pre-season Guardiola made some brief comments regarding his hopes for the player and yes he might come good soon, but at the moment I see no significant coverage, no interviews with the player and no significant articles summarising his career to date, which is unsurprising, because he hasn't actually done anything of note yet. You are right though, if he plays in the CL then he will be deemed notable. Fenix down (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Additionally, per WP:BOMBARD, I have also trimmed the article to remove the superfluous referencing. Why on earth would a second half substitute appearance in a pre-season friendly possibly warrant three separate references?!? Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A couple added comments of my own: first, Walter, would you mind providing some links to genuine reliable sources rather than these fansites and blogsites? International football is highly notable, and if the subject meets any notability standard surely he'd be featured in the genuine press?  Secondly, "WP:NFOOTBALL is rubbish so I won't bother reading it" ... what the hell?  It is not your -- nor mine, nor Fenix's, nor anyone's -- place to decide unilaterally that we're going to ignore any notability guidelines we don't like.  NFOOTY is the subordinate sports guideline which applies to the subject, and if you don't like NFOOTY's wording, the place to dispute that is on the NSPORTS talk page.  It's not something to litigate at AfD.   Ravenswing   14:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have restored them. You're simply removing sources. You're also angry that I called you out for not bothering to search for sources before electing to state the subject is not notable. In short, I'm sorry I pissed you off, but the subject has multiple reliable sources and meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to Ravenswing. They are genuine reliable sources. Yes it's rubbish. This is an AfD, but I have complained about it on the project page and other locations so I won't extend my complaints here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise, you didn't irritate me. Would be useful if you could show RS providing significant coverage that does not regurgitate the same brief press conference quote from Guardiola though to support your "it meets GNG" claim, which I believe I have quite comprehensively proven to be incorrect above. Fenix down (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: If the only valid claim for notability hinges on those two sources, it's not good enough. Only half of that first short source mentions the subject at all, and that's exactly the kind of routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE.  That leaves just the blogpost, which even if the blog qualified as a reliable source -- and I'd be interested in seeing proof of that -- is just one source, where the GNG requires multiple sources.  Since the subject obviously falls well short of sports-specific guidelines, there's no choice but to delete.   Ravenswing   02:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - my gosh, it's not difficult to find a lot of media coverage about this player; and as noted above, some of it is (borderline) notable. Nfitz (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think media coverage is in question as you can see from the discussion above, just the significance of it. Can you provide links to sources that do more than recycle the same brief comment from a Guardiola press conference, because I can't and that is all we seem to have here. Fenix down (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I *do* think media coverage is in question. We're seeing a flurry of blogs and fansites (recycling, as Fenix says, the same press conference).  What we're not seeing is coverage by the mainstream media.   Ravenswing   11:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A handful of blogs and fansites all of which are reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ...but which don't satisfy GNG because all they do is recycle the same brief quote from Guardiola. Can you actually point to a significant article on this player that does not rely on the Guardiola quote? Fenix down (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which do satisfy GNG because they offer significant coverage and are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you think one quote recycled by some blogs and minor websites = GNG or an article briefly noting how he came on once for twenty minutes in a pre-season friendly = significant coverage then I guess no one is going to persuade you otherwise. Fenix down (talk)
 * You do keep saying that, Walter, and here's my answer: prove it. I challenge that those sources have a known reputation for fact checking and accuracy.  Demonstrate that they are, indeed, regarded by reliable sources as having that.  Blogs and fansites are generally not automatically presumed to be reliable, and want rather more than a bald assertion that they are.   Ravenswing   22:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry you don't like me putting forth these RSes. I thought it was up to those who don't think they're RSes to take them to RSN. I've already taken one and it has been supported. I will not do your work for you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice try, Walter, but I can read an edit history as well as the next man. You've visited RSN only four times in the last calendar year, none since the start of this AfD, none with reference to sports .  Suggesting that RSN has already signed off on one of your sources is dishonest and constitutes poor faith.   Ravenswing   03:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I as a person have raised two sources there but not while signed in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, an anon IP did ask. A single editor responded, with comments such as the writer of one of your sources isn't listed on the site's staff page, "As for the editorial oversight, Wittmann's bio says that he's written for other publications, so he might fit our expert criteria, but it's not clear whether he's a professional journalist or a hobbyist. Bundesliga Fanatic doesn't appear to be cited in other publications (the way, say The Washington Post is)," and concludes by saying that he'd like to see more investigation, but that one source "might" be good as is if the claim it supports is -- in his words -- "very lightweight," such as Benko's age or the countries he visited. Being a reliable source which satisfies the GNG is very far from being "very lightweight," and we all know that an essential element in being considered a reliable source is a proven reputation for fact checking and accuracy. That being said, claiming that Darkfrog24's response endorses either of your sources shoots your credibility on this issue in the head.   Ravenswing   08:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the RS point here is a bit of a red herring, given that the sources which are being claimed to support GNG essentially recycle the same quote from a Guardiola press conference, I don't have any problem accepting that he did say what he said, my issue here is that is essentially all he has said and it therefore doesn't matter how many times it is regurgitated, it doesn't equal GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete In my view, this fails WP:GNG fairly easily. I am particularly persuaded by the responses of Fenix and Ravenswing to Görlitz's claims to the contrary. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 22:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I don't think the article is notable yet, but the amount of coverage makes it seem that subject will be notable in the near future, although that really isn't a valid reason to keep it now. Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - no in-depth coverage seen from third party reliable sources; therefore fails WP:GNG Spiderone  11:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I can't anything in reliable third-party media, except when his name comes up in listings of Bayern Munich youth talents. He'll probably be notable soon enough, but the article can be created then. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2016 (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.