Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladislav Tseytlin


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | [talk] || 16:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Vladislav Tseytlin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A before search yields only, which is a reliable source and focused on him but, unfortunately, not enough to justify a stand-alone article. Google News returns nothing about him. He does not appear to pass WP:GNG and does not appear to have reached the same heights of notability as compatriot Ravshan Irmatov. Spiderone 17:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  17:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Confirm and agree with the comments made by nom. Does not meet WP:BASIC, and does not meet the (non-existing) guideline that I consider comparable to WP:NFOOTBALL.  Walwal20  talk ▾ contribs 11:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete poor standing notability. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 16:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm concerned about User:Spiderone's before search. Looking just in Google, I see more detailed and in-depth news stories about his retirement (ironically noting that he's second only to Irmatov) here with other pieces one, two, and three. Nfitz (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One of those is just the Uzbek-language version of the retirement announcement that I have already referenced above. FC Shurtan Guzar is just a routine announcement that he is refereeing an upcoming fixture for FC Shurtan Guzar on the official club website for that club; not significant coverage or an independent news source. Yandex is focused on him but extremely brief. Sports Uz Interview is focused on him but it's an interview. It shows some good coverage on him as an individual in that last source, though. Ultimately, I'm not convinced that there is enough coverage. Referees tend to get a lack of coverage compared to footballers playing at the same level but it's not our place to right that wrong. Spiderone  08:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * " just the Uzbek-language version of the retirement announcement that I have already referenced above" User:Spiderone? Same publisher, but the English one is 3 weeks earlier and is only 2 sentences long, and the Uzbek one is far more detailed, and also includes an extensive interview. Nfitz (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Seems to be some coverage, only one so far which might go some way to satisfying GNG. Would delete if nothing more comes to light, but given sources are likely to be non English no harm in extending to allow more time.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The two sports.uz articles constitute WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS/WP:IS. Interviews being primary sources is an issue for citing factual information, not notability. Being interviewed by an WP:RS/WP:IS makes the subject notable and constitutes significant coverage, on par with a profile run by the same source. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 14:42, 20 October 2020 (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.