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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Stefan Ginchev

Stefan Ginchev (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined, for reasons I don't entirely understand. The article is so similar to the deleted version that it was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation, because it was too similar to the version archived on deletionpedia. In any case, the concern of only technically meeting WP:NSPORT (only one brief appearance in A PFG) still applies. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - Let me try to help. G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version." In this case the additional references, in my judgement, meant that the page was not "substantially identical" so I declined the speedy. In these cases it is not part of the role of the assessing admin to evaluate additional sources in detail; since policy is that only obvious cases should be speedied then correct procedure is to decline and allow determination at AFD if thought appropriate. Just Chilling ( talk) 20:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 01:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 01:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 01:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• The bot should have deletionpedia in its whitelist. But now the article has many references that show notability, so I suggest that we keep the page. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Graeme Bartlett as well as many football references online with material on him. smileguy91 ^{talk - contribs} 02:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• I would like to ask you to keep this page. It's a page about the Bulgarian professional footballer Stefan Ginchev who was not on Wikipedia yet. I believe that the article has many references that show notability and that this person deserves to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FightSong ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - one appearance a few years ago (to technically meet NFOOTY) before moving to a series of clubs in minor leagues is not enough when he comprehensively fails GNG. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish, Andrei Nițu and Erand Rica, amongst others. Giant Snowman 08:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Plenty of coverage from what appear to be fairly reliable and national sources in Bulgaria. Seems to be notable for more than just that one pro appearance. Spiderone 09:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep, because I'm prepared to apply the rationale of the football-specific notability guideline re presumption of notability equally to the Bulgarian top division and the English leagues, particularly as the subject is still young. But I'd like to comment on the sources currently in the article. They're probably all reliable, and some are national, but I'm surprised that people think they constitute enough "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for GNG:
  • Refs 1 and 2 list his name as one of 25 regional winners (he won in Pavlikeni) in a national Children and Football programme; which is good, but it isn't the BFU young player of the year as claimed in the article;
  • Ref 3 is a match report of an under-19 game in wich he scored a penalty; it doesn't verify his being the top goalscorer in the academy, as far as I can tell via Google translate;
  • Refs 4–7 are all the same piece, more or less edited down, about several clubs being interested in taking Ginchev into their academies;
  • Ref 8 is mostly a quote from Nike about their latest marketing exercise in Bulgaria, aiming to make young athletes look like stars; it verifies only that Ginchev is the first youngster to be equipped by Nike under that scheme, not the first Bulgarian athlete to be contracted to use their kit;
  • Ref 9 is a namecheck in a routine squad list report.
• If the article is kept, I'd suggest it gets trimmed to content actually verifiable from the cited sources. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 13:37, 8 December 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.