Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cenk
Cenk was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.
He was in the game Championship Manager 2001/2002 under Gaziantep Buyuk Sehir Bld Spor, which is youth team of gaziantep as a Grey player (one you cannot transfer). -Sinan
This article is about a footballer who has only ever played a single game for a single team. I hardly think this is encyclopedic. David Johnson 00:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If he's for real, keep. See the vfd on Witto Aloma for reasoning. I accepted the argument given there, because it is at least a standard.Dr Zen 02:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: A single game and then let go? That's too ephemeral. I suspect that this is a vanity article, instead, by him now continuing his studies in Canada. Geogre 02:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Please see the discussion on Witto Aloma, Geogre. Why accuse editors of nefarious things without evidence? Please, assume good faith. Dr Zen 03:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Witto Aloma discussion does not shed much light here. Witto played over a hundred games and was unquestionably a legitimate player. But still he only scraped through because the vote was inconclusive. Some people thought every pro athelete should be in, some didn't. In any case, just because you happened to get paid for a game doesn't mean you made a living at the sport. --LeeHunter 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Please see my vote there. I suspect that it is a vanity page. I have not accused anyone of anything. There is internal evidence to suggest autobiography and virtually none that it is a sport biography. Geogre 06:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Please see the discussion on Witto Aloma, Geogre. Why accuse editors of nefarious things without evidence? Please, assume good faith. Dr Zen 03:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Strong delete - Garbage article, possible vanity page also. Absolutely not notable, non-encyclopedic. A band that only ever released one song would be deleted, an actor that had only done a small cameo in one movie would be deleted, and both of those things are more notable than this guy. Nobody has ever heard of him, and nobody ever will. (And Dr. Zen, I say this having read Witto Aloma - there's a world of difference between 116 games in major league baseball, and ONE game for a Turkish soccer team!) - Vaelor 04:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I suggested reading the discussion on VFD (sorry, can't do the link off the top of my head), not the article itself. What difference does it make that the soccer team is Turkish?Dr Zen 05:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That discussion was archived at Talk:Witto Aloma. The difference is the number of informed editor/readers who will read the article and keep it free from vandalism. Many average readers follow major league baseball. I suspect that we do not have as many Turkish soccer fans editing the en:Wikipedia. There is also a difference in the notability of the players. More people will know of Witto Aloma simply because he played more games. Rossami (talk) 09:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I accepted the argument of James M Lane that all professional sportsmen should be in. Even if the guy only played once, he still would have made his living from football. Rossami, your argument basically boils down to saying that anything American gets more or less a free pass (because American editors preponderate) but anything that is from a non-English-speaking country is more likely to be deleted!Dr Zen 23:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I would not say "free pass". For one thing, I do not agree with the argument that all professional sportspeople should automatically qualify for an article. You do raise a good point, though. Our requirement that an article be verifiable and maintainable has the unfortunate side effect that for topics from popular culture (such as sports or movies), the ratio of informed editors currently creates a bias in favor of US content. Rossami (talk)
- Rosammi's point about an article's verifiability and maintainability is very valid and well put, but my reason for making that statement initially was in regards moreso to the notability of the article. Like it or not, the number of Wikipedia users/visitors who are aware of/interested in/searching for US Major League Baseball information undoubtedly vastly outnumber those who are knowledgable about/interested in Turkish soccer. It has nothing to do with nationalities, don't make this a race issue. Like it or not, yes, American "editors" do make up the bulk of Wikipedia's - and, in fact, the internet's at large - member base, so topics of strong significance to Americans are more notable to this "public" than more obscure international topics. Hey, I'm from Australia, and a lot that I would consider notable here has already come under VfD because of its lack of notability to the rest of the world. The internet is essentially a mob rule society, live with it. - Vaelor 15:31, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I would not say "free pass". For one thing, I do not agree with the argument that all professional sportspeople should automatically qualify for an article. You do raise a good point, though. Our requirement that an article be verifiable and maintainable has the unfortunate side effect that for topics from popular culture (such as sports or movies), the ratio of informed editors currently creates a bias in favor of US content. Rossami (talk)
- I accepted the argument of James M Lane that all professional sportsmen should be in. Even if the guy only played once, he still would have made his living from football. Rossami, your argument basically boils down to saying that anything American gets more or less a free pass (because American editors preponderate) but anything that is from a non-English-speaking country is more likely to be deleted!Dr Zen 23:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That discussion was archived at Talk:Witto Aloma. The difference is the number of informed editor/readers who will read the article and keep it free from vandalism. Many average readers follow major league baseball. I suspect that we do not have as many Turkish soccer fans editing the en:Wikipedia. There is also a difference in the notability of the players. More people will know of Witto Aloma simply because he played more games. Rossami (talk) 09:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I suggested reading the discussion on VFD (sorry, can't do the link off the top of my head), not the article itself. What difference does it make that the soccer team is Turkish?Dr Zen 05:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete The IP the person used is for a Canadian ISP. It's a vanity article for an extremely obscure soccer player. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 11:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity. Susvolans 15:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity. --LeeHunter 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Question: Is it even possible to verify that this player did, in fact, play? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:19, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
- The answer seems to be no, at least unless someone can read Turkish. I found a Cenk Ogut that won an event at an athletics competition representing a Canadian high school, and a guy with the same name played some games with a Canadian soccer association[1], but that's as close as I could come. "Cenk" by itself does appear on several Turkish (I'm assuming) language sites, but most seem to refer to a high-scoring player from Adanaspor[2]. Niteowlneils 19:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Apparently, he was on a youth team, which makes it definite. Even if it is verified, delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:54, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Cribcage 19:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.