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 see no consensus here as there is a fundamental disagreement on whether or not sources available establish GNG. I don't think a second relisting will resolve this divide. I feel like there is another AFD in this article's future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kastanaras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBASIC. Ref 1 is an one-paragraph announcement, ref 2 is a routine announcement primarily quotes, ref 3 appears to also be routine sport coverage, having only three short paragraphs, mostly quotes, ref 4 is a five-sentence announcement, whereas ref 5 is slightly longer, but also leans on the routine side, mainly mentioning stats and injuries, and is debatably non-trivial. My WP:BEFORE found sources such as interview, mention, and short/routine coverage, e.g., 1, 2, 3, but I don't think they meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. My search for the Greek name didn't find much meeting SIGCOV as well, so I purpose a redirect to VfB Stuttgart (please ping me if more substantial coverage are found).

The notability of this has been discussed at User talk:Ortizesp#Thomas Kastanaras and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#User_turns_articles_into_redirects_without_any_discussion regarding a draftification by Onel5969. I've pinged Hannelsen, Lee Vilenski, BusterD, Amakuru, and Ortizesp who were involved in these discussions. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG, coverage is beyond basic with biographical information, enough to write a legitimate article. Sources are significant, primary and independent of the subject.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't believe we're all looking at the same five sources and same BEFORE. None of the five applied sources directly details anything other than the routine sports news associated with specific events and contract negotiations. The subject is inarguably verified. I just don't see any compelling case made or proven that the subject is any more notable than any other paid teen-aged football player. The subject fails significant coverage at GNG and in no way meets SPORTSBASIC. This is a redlink on a team template and as such doesn't in any way constitute a compelling need to violate BLP. BusterD (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly none of the sources is anything but routine sports coverage. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per the nom's well-reasoned argument and extensive BEFORE. The sources are the same kind of UNDUE routine transactional coverage rejected in dozens of AfDs; at this point it should be clear they are not acceptable for SPORTBASIC and it's disruptive for editors to keep insisting they're SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Draftify, as I didn't read the dates of the sources till now. The coverage is still mostly non-encyclopedic and marginal, but as there is the potential for SIGCOV in the near future I think it's appropriate to draftify. JoelleJay (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to VfB Stuttgart - While I disagree with the characterization of the Stuttgarter Nachricten article (it is brief but not "routine"), I agree that there is not enough online German-language coverage to meet WP:GNG. He's only played a handful of minutes in the Bundesliga, so it's hardly surprising that the coverage isn't there yet - it's just WP:TOOSOON. Jogurney (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the sourcing is sufficient to meet GNG IMHO. GiantSnowman 20:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the references in the article are a bit thin - but here's another couple from last week. one and two. Nfitz (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What's on the article seems okay to start with and there is more online which to me feels like a perfectly valid article that passes what I believe as basic GNG. As always, I fail to understand why delete voters never support drafting an article. Govvy (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I said in my nomination statement, it has already been draftified twice (1, 2) and contested, so AfD is the next step for this article. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which source passes SPORTSBASIC? JoelleJay (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless one of the applied sources offers significant coverage (and none of the seven presented so far do), this still fails SPORTSBASIC which requires at least one significant coverage source. BusterD (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, I see two polar opposite points of view on the quality of the sourcing and I don't want to close this as No Consensus without a first relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RS. NYC Guru (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is just clarifying that I do agree that some of these sources meet the reliable sources guideline. Instead, my subjective concern is that significant coverage isn't satisfied, which other editors of course respectfully disagree with (which I appreciate as it's great in building a consensus). Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep scrapes through WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can someone please point out which source actually satisfies SPORTSCRIT? Handwaving at "GNG" is meaningless if there isn't a specific source identified. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some that others have suggested are STN, ZVW and Fussball Transfers Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not in-depth coverage, just routine. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NBASIC as likely WP:TOOSOON. Trivial coverage does not advance notability. Not opposed to Redirect to VfB Stuttgart as an ATD. Sources that mention things like the subject "receives a professional contract" (#1), "Kastanaras extended until 2025" (#2), "This is how Pellegrino Matarazzo is planning Kastanaras with Thomas" (#3), "Kastanaras celebrates Bundesliga debut" (#4), "Bundesliga debut: Kastanaras is said to give VfB “a lot of joy”" (#5), are just routine coverage, and does not provide significant coverage. Of the two sources mentioned by Nfitz #1-), "That's why Thomas plays Kastanaras with a hole in his shoe". He has an injury and unless someone has a crystal ball could be very serious, #2-)"VfB offspring in Marbella: This is how Egloff, Kastanaras, di Benedetto & Co.", states the subject "could soon become VfB's number two striker". He is not in the starting XI. All of these fall far short of satisfying the criteria for inclusion. In fact, aside from the subjects name and when born there is only mention of his sports accomplishments (there are other venues for resumes), that tilts the article to a pseudo biography. There is nothing to present a "full and balanced biography". -- Otr500 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per lack of current WP:GNG which is likely gonna be overcome at some point in the future - WP:TOOSOON. It can be expected the subject to probably become notable anytime soon, he just isn't right now. Angelo (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - @Jogurney:, @Chalk19:, Besides the many sources already listed on the article and on this discussion, I found 6, 7, 8, and 9 among many many more Greek and German sources. Young player with many sources with ongoing career and already 2 appearances in the fully pro German Bundesliga, one of the top 5 leagues worldwide. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sourcing may be on the lighter side, but it is a stretch to not see a WP:GNG pass here. The SportDay reference is pretty good, as it describes his rise through youth leagues and his commitment to Stuttgart. --Enos733 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2023 (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.