Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kübra Dadaşoğlu


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Kübra Dadaşoğlu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: Easily passes WP:GNG, with multiple mentions in national level publications including Milliyet, Hurriyet, Sabah (newspaper) and others. While these may be in Turkish language, the repeated national level coverage gets her over the line.  The article could probably use more attention from a Turkish speaking contributor to improve the article and the sourcing. This does not negate the notability based on national level coverage of her by major publications in Turkey. --LauraHale (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: I am not seeing significant coverage per GNG, specifically: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Anything that is just a passing mention or game coverage is typically considered WP:ROUTINE. Number 1 is a team roster. Number 2 is coverage of the Championship team going into details on the backgrounds the players who participated. Her only mention there is "Kubra Dadaşoğlu, who is the best goalkeeper in the Turkish Ice Hockey Federation Women's League, and Betul Toygar, who is the best forward player, stated that women in the first place in the East are not warmly interested in sports but they are appreciated by the success stories that extend to the championship" (more or less based on translation) and really only confirms that she was named Best Goaltender. Number 3 is a interview with what appears to be her entire team, she is quoted three times (two of which are one sentence responses) and lacks the depth of coverage needed for a GNG-worthy source as she is not the subject. Number 4 is the same article as Number 2. Number 5 mentions her as the best goaltender from the previous season. Number 6 is a brief article stating the team won the championship and the subject won best goaltender. Number 7, she is listed among other athletes invited to a training camp. Number 8, she is listed as a member if the team. Number 9 is a stats page. For a Turkish player, this coverage is better than most get. However, I am just not seeing significant depth needed for GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: per Yosemiter, to whom I'm grateful for doing the legwork on a couple of these AfDs so that I don't have to do so. I remain dismayed that LauraHale and Smartyllama are pulling knee-jerk Keeps on these Turkish women's hockey articles without coming up with a single cite that meets the GNG's requirements, and are notably silent when asked to identify specific cites they claim do.  I'm sympathetic to the travails of those who'd like to see more articles on women athletes (although men's hockey in Turkey's no more notable), and I'd like to be able to take LauraHale on faith when she claims to have found GNG-qualifying cites, but after seeing such antics on several of these AfDs, it's irresponsible to do so.    Ravenswing   01:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with based on ref like 1 Also agree that having an editor with Turkish language expertise would be helpful.  Context is key. Hmlarson (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is a longstanding criterion that quotes from a subject (especially in a large article full of quotes from several players) cannot be used to support the notability of a subject. I'm not sure what notability criteria is satisfied by "context," but assuredly neither the GNG nor NHOCKEY are.   Ravenswing   05:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I covered that source already with "Number 3 is a interview with what appears to be her entire team, she is quoted three times (two of which are one sentence responses) and lacks the depth of coverage needed for a GNG-worthy source as she is not the subject." (The rough translation of the third is "Does not support the family and therefore has difficulties? - Kubra Dadaşoğlu: I am Ilıcalı. A district that is a bit backward from the point of view of the Ilıca. My parents were the people who put the sport back. Yeliz Yüksel, my teacher of this physical education teacher, brought me. A teacher accepted my family that I would be in. But my parents had a little trouble because our workouts were over at the end of the day. 14 kilometers between our home and the gym. It takes about 45 minutes by bus. We can not find a bus every hour." Enough of a translation to get the gist of the content and context.) care to explain how this is significant coverage? (Not to mention GNG needs multiple.) Yosemiter (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is sufficient enough considering context. You disagree, I hear you. Hmlarson (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Furthermore, I'm seeing significant elements of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - No English sources to show notability, and no article on the Turkish Wikipedia either. [] Her career also predated the Turkish ban so there should be something if she was considered notable in her own county. There should be an article on her there first before she can be considered notable here. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  19:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't find the argument "if [one or another female hockey player in a Turkish semi-professional league] were notable, there would already be an article about her in the Turkish Wikipedia" compelling. New articles about notable topics are still being added to the English Wikipedia every day; not all of them are newly notable on the day their article goes live, either. The lack of an article is not ipso facto proof that one was proposed and rejected as lacking notability. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 20:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you if that were the only criteria we were using. I'm saying that after we've exhausted English sourcing and still can't agree, that it's one more argument tipping the scales against notability. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  21:07, 21 August 2017 (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.