Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Ott

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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ott

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

Hasn't played in a fully professional league or played for a national team - fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources.

The article claims he made his international debut in June 2013. He was called up to a match against Hong Kong but he didn't make it onto the field. Hack (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while he fails WP:NFOOTBALL he does not fail WP:GNG. Süddeutsche Zeitung certainly is a reliable source. In depth coverage in the regional papers which goes beyond routine anouncements. Out of region coverage which extends to Polish, Spanish and Indonesian sources. While I can't vouch for the latter three as "reliable sources" in the Wikisense the transfer and the buildup to it has certainly created a media ripple that goes beyond the routine youth player moving to a major club. Might have something to do with the fact that he is built up to be "einer der talentiertesten Spieler Deutschlands" Agathoclea (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder about the Donaukurier source, especially as it came prior to local source. After reading about his brother their interest makes geographicaly sense. Agathoclea (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I could have sworn an Azkals player with the surname "Ott" played at least once (although I cannot recall if this is the player in question). Regardless, he appears to have received some coverage in reliable sources, foreign ones even. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: - you're thinking of his brother, Manuel Ott. Giant Snowman 08:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Fair enough, Delete per above, and for not playing in a professional league or for a national team. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Still fails the significant coverage criteria of GNG. Sources provided by Agathoclea are still about the transfer of the player and gives a bit of background to it rather than being directly and detailed about the player which is what you need to satisfy the significant coverage criteria of GNG. Banana Fingers (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since he has never played in a fully pro league or for a senior national team, the article fails WP:NSPORT. The coverage he has received is routine sport journalism insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Sources provided above to support GNG seem very short to me. not convinced they are significant enough. Fenix down (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2014 (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.