Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Revan
- 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sebastian Revan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD, original rationale was "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. His EFL Trophy appearances were for Aston Villa U21s and do not confer notability." In addition, his Grimsby Town appearance(s) are in non-league so again do not confer notability. GiantSnowman 21:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - best source I can find is this, which falls short on GNG Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Found other sources, at the end of the day professional player, loaned from one professional team to another, regardless of League. Much more notable than others who have articles who maybe played 1 or 2 EFL games then vanished whilst having thread bare articles. Footballgy (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - a professional player who has appeared in the EFL Trophy and National League and has a lot of significant coverage following winning the FA Youth Cup this summer also, the page is very well-referenced for an article of this type with 19 sources. Let's use common sense here, I think that the combination of Grimsby being a professional club, Revan being signed to a professional club in Aston Villa and him having represented them in a competitive trophy (albeit for a 'U21 side') against other professional sides including Sunderland, as well as significant coverage in the press means that this page scrapes through notability. Mountaincirquetalk 15:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please can you share the sources that show significant coverage of him? Preferably WP:THREE if possible. All I can see are match reports/transfer news. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Source analysis Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment on assessment: I appreciate the work you've put in here but I disagree with your classifications on quite a few of these, even the couple of articles that are solely about him (as per the SIGCOV guidance they addresses the topic directly and in detail) containing facts, quotes from managers, and details on his position you have tagged as 'trivial' or dismissed as a 'rehash', such as the one in The Non-League Paper which is a real off-line publication that has published a piece on him, as well as the Non League Daily piece which is brief but again all about him, and a few where you've written 'briefly mentioned' when the source itself shows a number of sentences on the subject as well as direct quotes from his manager detailing his style of play/position - for example the Birmingham Mail article near the end of the list.
- My WP:THREE would be:
- I feel that there is (just about enough) significant coverage in these and as you agree, they are all independent and reliable. In terms of completeness, you missed this BBC Sport piece, [4], which while short is high profile, reliable, and independent. He's also mentioned in this piece in the Athletic, [5]. I feel that these combined with Grimsby being a professional club, who will be going into the FA Cup draw next month, that deleting this article now is unjustified. Mountaincirquetalk 11:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Mountaincirque, much of the NLP piece is just quotes from an interview with his manager and so does not provide an independent analysis of him. It's basically equivalent to a press release. The Grimsby article is better, but it's also more of a recap of his performance against Alfreton -- I'm also very reluctant to consider a small-town paper truly independent from its home team, especially when it has daily updates from a dedicated Grimsby FC writer. The Birmingham Mail source is pure routine transfer coverage full of quotes from him and his manager, so definitely not independent. The BBC piece is also trivial loan content, and the Athletic barely mentions him. All in all, I'm still not seeing independent and significant coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I feel that there is (just about enough) significant coverage in these and as you agree, they are all independent and reliable. In terms of completeness, you missed this BBC Sport piece, [4], which while short is high profile, reliable, and independent. He's also mentioned in this piece in the Athletic, [5]. I feel that these combined with Grimsby being a professional club, who will be going into the FA Cup draw next month, that deleting this article now is unjustified. Mountaincirquetalk 11:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep As per other comments Professional player with a pro contract at a pro team on loan to another pro team. Common sense in this case.Finch14 (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The only factor that matters here is whether he meets GNG. This is explicitly required in the governing guideline (NSPORT):
...eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met.
CITEBOMBing with trivial mentions and routine match coverage is not a substitute for GNG sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC) - Keep. I totally get the argument that it was raised too early, but it just seems silly to delete it now - only to have to recreate it again in a few months time, most likely. Professional player, on loan to another professional team. Will soon be playing in the FA Cup for Grimsby. Will almost certainly be playing in the EFL next season. I would ask people to just use a little common sense, and if, say the player has not made an appearance fitting the requirements in 12 months time, then we should think about deletion. Bored0stiff (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTALBALL - yes, what if he is notable in the future - but also what if he is not? You will be well aware of the number of young players who never make it in the Football League. GiantSnowman 15:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- My view is it's better to have this page active now, which is in quite good health relatively, and delete it at a later date if he drops down into non-league football. The page had 1928 views last month, it's obviously of public interest. I hold that he scrapes through notability on coverage and there's a debate to be had on the EFL Trophy games for Villa U21 vs Sunderland (two pro clubs in a competitive trophy) give a claim to notability also. Though that's for another day/debate. Mountaincirquetalk 16:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- We often give some leeway to young players who meets NFOOTBALL but might not yet meet GNG. The issue with Revan is that he does not meet NFOOTBALL! (or GNG) GiantSnowman 18:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I can see the hard logic on the notability guidance, I'm just of the opinion that you should be able to take 6/7 smaller pieces of 'notability' and make a common sense judgement. I think what it boils down to for me is why delete this. What service does it do for the public? Why are we spending our time debating deleting an article that two thousand people have read this summer? Seemingly it's because he plays for a club that were just relegated from League Two into a league where a handful of clubs have semi-professional players. I realise we need to have rules but surely this is a fringe case on the boundary between pro/semi-pro. Mountaincirquetalk 09:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- We could extend that reasoning to any article on a non-notable topic -- why delete it if people are reading it? But the answer to that is in our core policy of what wikipedia is not (a database, fan blog, or promo site) and our principles governing BLPs (which have to be monitored especially closely to prevent vandalism since that can do real damage). Many articles kept on the premise that the subject would soon be notable have now been tagged with notability issues for 12+ years, all the while requiring volunteers assess every single edit. So the inverse question can also be asked: what harm is there in deleting or draftifying an article that would otherwise contain only database-type information but would still have to be watched extensively? JoelleJay (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I can see the hard logic on the notability guidance, I'm just of the opinion that you should be able to take 6/7 smaller pieces of 'notability' and make a common sense judgement. I think what it boils down to for me is why delete this. What service does it do for the public? Why are we spending our time debating deleting an article that two thousand people have read this summer? Seemingly it's because he plays for a club that were just relegated from League Two into a league where a handful of clubs have semi-professional players. I realise we need to have rules but surely this is a fringe case on the boundary between pro/semi-pro. Mountaincirquetalk 09:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- We often give some leeway to young players who meets NFOOTBALL but might not yet meet GNG. The issue with Revan is that he does not meet NFOOTBALL! (or GNG) GiantSnowman 18:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- My view is it's better to have this page active now, which is in quite good health relatively, and delete it at a later date if he drops down into non-league football. The page had 1928 views last month, it's obviously of public interest. I hold that he scrapes through notability on coverage and there's a debate to be had on the EFL Trophy games for Villa U21 vs Sunderland (two pro clubs in a competitive trophy) give a claim to notability also. Though that's for another day/debate. Mountaincirquetalk 16:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTALBALL - yes, what if he is notable in the future - but also what if he is not? You will be well aware of the number of young players who never make it in the Football League. GiantSnowman 15:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete run-of-the-mill match coverage does not amount to WP:GNG; and the rest about NFOOTBALL has already been covered so no need to repeat it. If it's a case of WP:TOOSOON, there's nothing that prevents recreation of this (via a request at DRV or with the eventually deleting admin) if (far from being a certainty) and when the situation of this football player changes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or draftify. Mr Revan doesn't meet the subject-specific notability criteria, nor does he (yet) meet WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is a current player in a country with wall-to-wall online football coverage, not someone from the 1920s: if significant independent coverage existed, it shouldn't be difficult to find. But what we have here is routine news and quotes from the player and his manager. Too soon. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per GiantSnowman, RandomCanadian, JoelleJay, and the source analysis by Spiderone.4meter4 (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2021 (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.