Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Süleyman Çelikyurt


 * 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. (non-admin closure) -- Patchy1   08:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Süleyman Çelikyurt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Concern was  Non-notable footballer who is yet to play in a fully-professional league. PROD was contested with a claim that 1. Lig is fully pro, an assertion not backed up by reliable sources at WP:FPL or elsewhere. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually said he played in a professional league - which the Turkish First League is (league statutes from the Turkish FA's website: http://www.tff.org/Resources/TFF/Documents/000013/TFF/STATULER/TFF-1-Lig-Statusu-19.07.2012.pdf). The German wikipedia, which has pretty much identical notability criteria for football players, also considers 1. Lig players as notable. And, btw - the source for the Turkish Süper League on the list of leagues doesn't use the term "fully professional" either, and refers to Turkey's professional football leagues, so at the very least the source actually includes the second division as well. Alexpostfacto (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per source above. ~dee  ( talk? ) 20:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Is the 1. Lig actually fully professional? Based on attendances as low as this, I have my doubts... J Mo 101 (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're going by attendances for the past week of games, then you should include this, this and this. The match you used for an example was played in Trabzon. 1461 Trabzon is essentially a feeder club to Trabzonspor a la Castilla to Real. Not a whole bunch of fans actually support the club. Meanwhile clubs like Rizespor and Adana Demirspor draw more support. Invisibletr (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How about Gaziantep BŞB then ? They're a stand-alone club, I assume. I don't doubt the fact there are some teams in the league drawing thousands of fans a week, but there are some clubs who are tiny in comparison, which would make it questionable to claim that the league is fully-professional. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Gaziantep BB is supported by the municipality. Much like Istanbul BB in the Super Lig. Istanbul BB averages in the 100s despite playing top flight football. All clubs with the name "Buyuksehir Belediyespor" attached to it are newer clubs funded by the government with no real fanbases. There are a couple more teams that don't draw a lot, but at the same time there are the Adanaspors, Karsiyaka, Goztepe, Denizlispor, Samsunspor and Rizespor who have much more storied histories and large fanbases. Invisibletr (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Turkey's 1. Lig is as likely fully-pro as most second-tier leagues listed at WP:FPL. Also, based on a quick review of Gazete Milliyet, it appears that Çelikyurt does receive Turkish language coverage, so I suspect the article can satisfy the GNG if Turkish-speaking editors are available to improve the article (I took a quick pass at it using Google Translate). Jogurney (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * While I don't speak Turkish, I was going to expand the article as well if it stays (I'll add some stuff now anyway). I have been working on other players' articles lately (I am going through all articles on my favorite club's players currently), so I didn't get to it yet. And now I have been waiting to see what people say on the league first. Alexpostfacto (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for improving the article - it probably satisfies the GNG now even if people are unsure about 1. Lig's fully-pro status. Jogurney (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - I don't feel the references at the article qualify for GNG (where is the multiple independent coverage) and this man's meeting of WP:NFOOTBALL is not confirmed. I would suggest confirming the league's professional status to meet NFOOTBALL as the best way to resolve this discussion as a keep. C 679 12:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep If I am right, I think I am! he played 4th tire German football, last time I looked it said it was fully-pro. And Turkey has a lot of money now. Turkish football has very good support and I wouldn't be suprised if if top 3 leagues are fully pro. Govvy (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The German Regionalliga is definitely not fully pro. The highest fully pro division in Germany is the 3. Liga. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - A long-overdue close is in order, apparently no consensus to delete. C 679 17:25, 6 March 2013 (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.