- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result waskeep.Mark Arsten (talk)15:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Petr Bohacik (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)
It must have an article in theCzech Wikipedia to expand the text using translation.Eyesnore22:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions.• Gene93k (talk)18:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Basketball-related deletion discussions.• Gene93k (talk)18:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.• Gene93k (talk)18:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - frivolous nomination without a valid procedure-based rationale.C67919:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't agree with the reason for nomination, but since we are here, I am not finding sources that he meetsWP:NBASKETBALL.WP:GNG does not appear to be met, with sources I am finding appearing to be trivial mention of his name otWP:ROUTINE game coverage. Granted, these sources might exist through searches in other language-specific search engines or in offline sources, but those will need to be identified.—Bagumba (talk)21:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOOGLEHITS is not necessarily an indication of notability by Wikipedia GNG standard. Perhaps you can help identify a few independent sources that have significant coverage of Bohacik. Also, the search result you provided all seems to be from idnes.cz. Note that per GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." We would need additional publications to satisfy GNGs "multiple sources" requirement.—Bagumba (talk)21:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NBL is the league he plays in, so it is notWP:INDY coverage that GNG requires. The rests seems likeWP:ROUTINE planned coverage of games with summaries that have some mentions of his name. GNG wants significant coverage that goes beyond mundane game recaps. More articles like "another star of the week (from the year before)" that you provided would be needed, as that one is independent and not routine.—Bagumba (talk)21:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly in-depth articles from independent media sources that I have already linked to above are not routine match reports, and even if you don't bother going to Google translate to see what they mean, you can see there is specific detail relating to the player himself. Topics include his brother's career, playing for the national team and detailed assessment of his personal scoring percentages.C67908:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is an unsourced statement in the article that he played for the Czech Republic national basketball. Is there a source for that, and did he play in a notable competition likeEuroChallenge? If so, that might be used to establish notability.—Bagumba (talk)21:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep at a minimum he played for the Czech Republic in the 2005 U20 European Championships perthis. I feel like an All-Star level player in a country's top professional league is PROBABLY notable. I think there are some issues trying to research these kinds of articles due to language issues and access to Czech press, but I am seeing a player who seems to be regarded of one of his country's best and is a top player in a country's top league. The Basketball notability standards have some issues. Why is a second round NBA Draft pick who never plays in the league automatically notable while a Czech All-Star isn't? I'll do some more research on the guy, but I say keep.Rikster2 (talk)22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A common theme atWP:NSPORTS is that it's the coverage that a player receives or presumably has received that makes them notable, not their stature in a specific country. Now you might be right that NSPORTS has some issues, but his pro career isn't presumed to be notable using current guideline criteria. EuroBasket might be another path to presumed notability, but even that is unclear.—Bagumba (talk)23:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what theguidelines say, I was just trying to give an example of how silly they are when put beside each other. I'd argue with EuroBasket, international play and being an All-Star level player in a fully professional league we should be able to assume he meets GNG, just like if he met the stated guidelines at NBASKETBALL, which can never anticipate every case.Rikster2 (talk)01:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- here are search result pages at two Czech newspaper siteshere andhere. I haven't started translating results, just curious what I'd get.Rikster2 (talk)02:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multiple sources of significant, independent coverage have not been identified to meetWP:GNG. Does not meetWP:NBASKETBALL as currently written. If an All-Star in his league was notable, GNG should be able to be demonstrated.—Bagumba (talk)22:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Withdrawing my delete, as I can look atthis interview and, depending on my mood, call it significant coverage or just a routine post game interview. With the advent of cable tv, lots of high-schoolers would get the same 1-on-1 interviews. Sure he is an all-star and on national team, but if it were that significant, wouldn't more obvious (not borderline) significant coverage have been found by now? I'm deferring judgement in light of my indecision of the interview. Usually I look for three or more sources, though I know some consider two to be multiple enough.—Bagumba (talk)05:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources presented above by the editor signing as C679 substantiate notability perWP:GNG.Phil Bridger (talk)08:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Petr Bohačík shows plentiful notable sources. I hope there have been no previous AfDs with this cited rationale. Also when doing an AfD or RM it is good practice to check Talk to ensure project tags are in place, in this case without a WP Czech Republic tag the "local" project team cannot pick up the AfD on their alerts lists. Added. Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk)02:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you identify the non-WP:ROUTINE coverage from independent sources you have found? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk)05:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,J04n(talk page)11:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable player, covered by the mayor news. --Yopie (talk)13:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, multiple sources from iDNES alone, bogus nomination rationale, not sure why this was relisted.-filelakeshoe14:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regrettably, voters to keep are making aWP:VAGUEWAVE that the subject is notable, pointing merely toWP:GOOGLEHITS or other search engine hits, without providing excerpts for discussion that counter my contention that the hits are trivial mentions orWP:ROUTINE game summaries. There is also a lack ofgood faith that "you don't bother going to Google translate". This discussion has regressed to aWP:POLL. I am bowing out unless the content of specific sources are discussed.—Bagumba (talk)18:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see at least 4 non trivial non match reports linked by C679 imediately before and after your comment that starts "WP:GOOGLEHITS." Only one of them was from the NBL site (and I didn't count one that appears to be a match report).Rikster2 (talk)19:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agreed that the source from idnes.cz posted at 21:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC) was significant. However, I also stated that GNG needed multiple sources, not multiple articles from the same publication. I found the ones posted after to be routine, but perhaps you can identify the specific ones you are referring to and why you believe they are not routine. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk)20:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regrettably, you are characterising the multiple specific sources from multiple publishers with non-trivial and non-routine coverage identified by C679 above as vague waves, when they are not at all vague and not at all wavy.Phil Bridger (talk)20:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ROUTINE discounts "planned coverage of pre-scheduled events." There are lots of game coverage that mention a player. It is why. for example, a high school player who gets plenty of routine coverage would not generally be considered notable. I believe it would be more effective for supporters to identify and discuss specific coverage that is significant, than for me to point out all the routine, trivial coverage.—Bagumba (talk)21:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I and others keep telling you, C679 has already identified specific, non-routine coverage above. Instead of asking us to copy the links from one place to another in this discussion why don't you just check out those sources?Phil Bridger (talk)21:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did look at the sources. See my response above at 21:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC) that starts "NBL is the league he plays in ...". To which the response to me was that it was "Clearly in-depth", a claim that "you don't bother going to Google translate", and a commentary about sources without identifying which source I might have overlooked. I might very well be wrong, but just responding back "it is notable" is not constructive.—Bagumba (talk)21:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba - the link above your GOOGLEHITS comment is I believe the one you admitted wasn't routine. The first link after your comment (at Denik) is an interview with the subject at a source not affiliated with his team or league. Of the two Blesk articles, one is a match report but the other calls him specifically out for star performance. I'd also argue that the NBL article is specific about him not just as a member of his team. I understand this isn't independent coverage, but taken with the others (as well as his FIBA international career, EuroBasket and All Star status in his league - which I verified through the NBL media guide btw) I think these establish his notability.Rikster2 (talk)13:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the explanation. I accepted the denik interview as one signif source. We need multiple ones though. The second Blesk, via Google Translate, is one IMO trivial mention "In the end, however, tore Východočeši win on his side. encounter became a hero visiting Peter Bohačík." I guess at the end of the day, I'm looking for coverage that we can write a bio, not that he was someone mentioned in passing in one sentence that he was good here and here and that's it. I'm admittedly being strict on GNG, while you are taking outside factors that have not been accepted at NSPORTS. Time could prove me wrong, and I have no prejudice to this article being recreated when the non-English sources—online or offline—are found or NSPORTS is modified. I understand your point, and I think we can agree to disagree.—Bagumba (talk)19:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You already "accepted" the iDnes source as well, so that'smultiple sources. If GNG is met, NSPORTS does not have to be met. This discussion will however prove useful in the establishment of articles for similar non-NBA players.C67909:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the iDNES.cz one clearly meets GNG - interview with the subject not tied to a game from an independent source (and not even a sports-specific site). I'd only point out that GNG does not require that enough coverage through independent sources is there to actually build a bio. Once you've established notability, you can bring in sources from his team, league and FIBA to fill out the bio - and there is ample coverage to do so with this subject. There are hundreds of athlete articles that are built entirely from information from their college, team or league. If they meet GNG or the sport notability guidelines that's acceptable.Rikster2 (talk)14:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks all. The discussion helped. Going back and forth with translations and a whole list of sources can get unwieldy. I've withdrawn my delete, but I'm not in a position to support. See my comments above.—Bagumba (talk)05:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW,the article at cs.wiki already existed and has since been linked to the one here.C67906:40, 11 February 2013 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
