Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Bashti

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Bashti

[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)

The highest level the subject played in was for the reserve affiliate of Atlanta United before retiring from the sport. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and Georgia (U.S. state). Raskuly (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject appears to have coverage in [[1]], [[2]], and [[3]]. I'd say this subject meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
pinging @GiantSnowman: per their request Ike Lek (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 is about his team's new jersey. Source 2 is fine. Source 3 is about the academy he was part of. Overall not enough. Find another source or two like #2 and I'll re-consider. Giant Snowman 09:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While Bashti isn't the main focus of the third source, I would encourage you to reevaluate the level of coverage he received in it, as it is quite substantial. I do not have paywall access to this [4], but it could be something. [5] also contains some good coverage. You could argue these next ones aren't either independent nor substantial, but I wanted to include them as well in case I am wrong in my assessment [6][7][8]. Also, here is some high school coverage I found while looking that almost certainly doesn't show notability, but I thought was funny and worth sharing [9]. Ike Lek (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above notability. Also, the "reserve affiliate of Atlanta United" is still considered professional. --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Level of professional play is not relevant to notability. Giant Snowman 09:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, which is why I stated my keep is per above notability. The second clause is separated with "also" in regards to OP's original statement.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to suggest that Atlanta United 2 was not professional, if it came across that way. Raskuly (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comment on cited sourcing would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – About Let's run sources:

The San Francisco Examiner just metion about his draft picking, trivial

The Atlanta Constitution looks in-depth enough for that moment in the player's career, valid for WP:GNG

Center Line Soccer website has the expected coverage of an athlete in the youth sectors of the San Jose Earthquake, complementary

The ideal would be some more source about the consolidated career as a whole, but I believe it is on the threshold to notability. Svartner (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Has sources, was seen as an ourtsanding player at D1 college program (as stated in newspaper) and played fully pro soccer. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2025 (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.