Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Hossein Tahuni

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. I don't think we are making any real progress likely to lead to a consensus. Fenix down (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hossein Tahuni

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has played minimal game time for Esteghlal in the 2014-15 season in the Iran Pro League with only two games where he was subbed on. A check on the English side of things also produced barely any results for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG comprehensively, which is more important than him technically scraping by on NFOOTBALL following 2 sub appearances many years ago. Plenty of consensus to support this view. Giant Snowman 10:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NFOOTY pass with career ongoing, enough to satisfy GNG: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Probably more out there, esp. for those more knowledgeable with the Persian language. R96Skinner (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He played in fully-professional league (for example). In addition he played for two popular club in Iran (Esteghlal and Nassaji) and I think It is enough for notability! --Maometto97 (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per R96Skinner's WP:GNG (on an assumption, as I have not been able to translate some of the articles, but I would also assume anyone appearing for Esteghlal would be notable at some point.) SportingFlyer T·C 18:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep professional footballer that played in professional league of Iran in popular teams.صدیق صبري (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – lack of sources meeting GNG. You don't really need to speak Persian to know that sources like this, this and this are way, way too short to be SIGCOV of anything. I'm not seeing WP:THREE, or even two, good GNG sources. However, the large number of online non-in-depth sources suggests that access to sources isn't an issue here. If someone had written in-depth coverage of this player in a reliable source, we should be finding it online, if we're finding all these other brief mentions. – Levivich 18:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Phew, I was worried you weren't coming in with your customary delete on this AfD! ;) That's not true, I only found those sources (which are enough for GNG given [11], [12] are of good depth, and the rest are sustained over a fair amount of time) because of the name translation on the article itself, without that I'd have found nothing - Google Translate gives a different translation, for example. It's possible not all media would use his full name, he may even have a nickname. So there is a language barrier, which is to be very much expected - you yourself mentioned something of the sort at AfD/Jé. Unrelated note: Remember AfD/Wilson Severino, where we actually agreed with each other - scary times! R96Skinner (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry to keep everyone waiting; usually it only takes three keep !votes to make Levivich appear. Of course you know I'm going to say that I don't think those two particular sources [13], [14] count towards GNG because they're purely "Q&A"-style interviews–all the content is coming from the player, almost nothing in the publication's own voice–and I'm of the camp that it doesn't count because it's primary, non-independent/aboutself, routine (lots of players get Q&A interviews in the local media when they join a team or a new season starts, etc.), and doesn't show the investment of actual journalism on the part of the publication. (I know not everyone agrees with this view of interviews.) What Je [15] [16] [17] and Severino [18] [19] [20] (when the planets aligned and we agreed ) have that Tahuni doesn't are multiple examples of non-Q&A-interview, in-journalist's-own-voice, in-depth (500 words all about the player) coverage. – Levivich 03:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I respect that, though disagree of course. Side note: I wasn't actually comparing Jé and Severino to this AfD, I just namechecked them for strictly the reasons mentioned. R96Skinner (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is insufficient biographical information available in reliable sources, so we can't write a biography of this person, even if he does scrape a technical pass on one of Wikipedia's most inclusionist SNGs.—S Marshall T/C 08:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Same comment I've brought up elsewhere: Interviews, statistics websites, game reports, transfer reports, and the like, are primary sources. Are there any non-interview, "real" secondary sources upon which we can base this article? Without secondary sources, I don't see how this article can be kept and yet comply with core policy WP:NOR: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Here, we seem to be basing an article entirely on primary sources. – Levivich 15:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You may/may not have a point on the other AfDs you posted this comment on, but I believe it's fair to say GNG is satisfied here - you'd (not you directly) be stretching to say otherwise to be honest. R96Skinner (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - passing WP:NFOOTY does not exempt from meeting WP:GNG. Like most commentators I am struggling with understanding the sources. However, the onus is on those who wish to 'keep' to show the necessary sources. In this context, the two sources highlighted, 11 and 12, are both to the same site. They are Q&A interviews, not error-checked editorial articles, and as such do not count as reliable sources. Currently this article fails WP:GNG. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "I am struggling with understanding the sources", yet you apparently perfectly understand the aforementioned #11 and #12 to (questionably) judge them - strange, that! R96Skinner (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - THose two sources, that you highlighted, translated but a number of others did not. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - So your delete argument revolves around the supposed fact that you can't translate sources? That's the type of reasoning you'd find at WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and indicates a bias against non-English articles. R96Skinner (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - My delete argument is based on the fact that I have seen no evidence that the necessary sources exist. BTW please cut out the unpleasant tone that says more about you, as a person, than about your case. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Unpleasant tone? I'm surprised you've interpreted my words that way, my apologies. "I have seen no evidence", well you have but you are choosing not to find a way to translate them - loads of places on the world wide web help with translation. R96Skinner (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think what would be helpful here is to actually flesh the article out a bit. A number of sources have been clearly demonstrated and we as an English language website do not do a good job with Iranian sources, and different countries have different standards of sports journalism. If these articles were in Latin script I don't think this conversation would be anywhere near as difficult. As I said before I think this passes WP:GNG on the sources shown, but if someone could weave some of the sources into the article to make it evident, we'd put this beyond doubt. I wouldn't be beyond draftifying this if consensus is delete and someone wants to rescue it. SportingFlyer T·C 01:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't looked at this closely, but some of the sources above seem compelling. I'm tempted to try and improve the article, but I'm not sure how much time I want to waste if it comes to nought. User:GiantSnowman - are you still a delete on this, I'm not sure you saw the recent sources. Nfitz (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I think draftify would be a reasonable outcome if there are editors who want to work on it. – Levivich 20:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How is draftify ever a proper result? Either the subject meets GNG or it doesn't. If the subject meets GNG, and the article needs improving, then deletion is never the solution, because deletion is not cleanup as per the policy WP:NOTCLEANUP. Everyone's time would be better spent improving the article for weeks, rather than arguing about it. If one genuinely believe the subject doesn't meet GNG, then fine ... but if one can accept that it should be draftified and improved, then that's troubling to me. Nfitz (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2019 (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.