Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-Europeans Player of the Year

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. An assertion of notability is sufficient to prevent speedy deletion, but actual reliable sources are needed for AFD. The consensus of this discussion is that such sources are lacking. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All-Europeans Player of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete:Despite the glossy title this is just a selection by a sports website, Eurobasket.com, which itself struggles with notability (though to be fair it is a popular basketball website) similar to the end of season All-whatever selections of thousands of websites. It has no notability beyond the website itself (most awardees don't aknowledge the "distinction") with the lack of coverage to boot. ArmstrongJulian (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Every media outlet sets awards, no evidence Eurobasket's carry any extra weight/notability. Rikster2 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Though I wouldn't say Eurobasket struggles with notability like the nom said, I wouldn't qualify every one of their lists as important enough for an article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person nominating the award is doing so simply because they are mad at me and I created the article and they want these deleted. Look at my talk page and you can see that. I don't like to have to say that, but it is clear.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with this article, and indeed a number of your edits, is that it doesn't answer wikipedia's notability requirements, do us all a favour and try reading the official policy that determines what should be on the site. You keep making contributions (and I use the term loosely) that are unsourced (again read the guideline) and make unsupported claims, this is not a forum or fan page but a website that aims for a certain standard yet you keep editing and acting as if it was the former. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that all my articles, including this one are sourced, and I am making no such edits as a "fan page". And I read the criteria and this article meets the standard. You simply put it up for deletion because you are mad at me, just because I asked you why you were changing dozens of articles height parameters.Bluesangrel (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you not supposed to notify people when you mark their articles for deletion? I thought that you are? ArmstrongJulian marks several articles for deletion, but never gives a notice to the creator of the article that they were marked for deletion. I thought you were supposed to do that.Bluesangrel (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesangrel: Follow WP:HOUND if you believe there is a problem with the other editor. As far as AfDs, it's not a reason to keep an article.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:LISTN. No evidence of independent reliable sources that discuss this grouping. Granted, I might not find these on English websites, and also wouldn't know which ones are reliable. This is the difficulty with dealing with potentially notable subjects covered in predominantly non-English sources. However, no persuasive arguments have been forthcoming either.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I see that personal grudges continue here. You guys can't keep pushing articles created for deletion out of petty personal grudges. This isn't going to go over. I am taking this to the basketball project and to the dispute resolution board if it is not resolved. This is ridiculous.Bluesangrel (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or you could just identify the independent reliable sources that all the delete !voters have not been able to find.—Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My article All-Europe Player of the Year had several independent verified sources listed on it and you said it should be deleted and did not meet any standard. You helped get it deleted, just like you want this to be deleted. Don't worry, I am reporting all of this to moderators and taking this up officially as an abuse report.Bluesangrel (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not appear to be a generally recognized award. Very low coverage, and that coverage is not of award but of recipients. Example: At the end of an article about Dirk Nowitzki there is the last half-line "he has been named Eurobasket's All-Europeans Player of the Year five times since 2005." --Bejnar (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has 7 outside sources from articles, in addition to the source of Eurobasket.com, which is the biggest basketball site in the world in traffic, bigger than NBA.com. Hardly anything coming near to no independent outside verified sources, not a generally recognized award, or very low coverage, as is being claimed here.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin Blueangrel has !voted already, and has been warned against multiple !votes at another venue already.—Bagumba (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The closing admin might also want to look at this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artūrs Strautiņš - that article meets every standard of notability without any doubt or question and cannot be challenged. It can't be challenged. Yet, there it is completely falsely nominated for deletion by the same editor, and even has others agreeing it should be deleted already. This seems to be a pattern involving ArmstrongJulian.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles nominated for deletion are of no relevance here. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Kraxler (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.