Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sawyer Hannay

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please assume good faith with my decision. If you believe this article was deleted without good reason, please request undeletion at deletion request, not my talk page. Thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sawyer Hannay

[edit]
Sawyer Hannay (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)

Non-notable hockey player, fails the GNG (no sources which don't violate WP:ROUTINE or WP:GEOSCOPE) and the WP:NHOCKEY criteria. Undistinguished junior career, only a handful of games in the mid-minors. Ravenswing 00:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the creator of an article was so non-plused by the topic of that article that they couldn't be bothered to include RS references, then the article subject is not notable. "Notable" means "noteworthy" or worthy of mention. Sourcing, formatting, and inserting RS citations is an incumbent part of the WP experience. Therefore, articles lacking RS' are not fully formed articles, which is a demonstration by the editor that they do not feel the subject is noteworthy, no different than a spoken aside, trailing off in the middle of a sentence and abandoned by the speaker mid-thought. It is inexcusable to see the volume of articles on substantive topics that exist and lack properly inserted references. I restate my support for Delete. DocumentError (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I refer you to WP:NOTCLEANUP; a non-problematic stub on a worthy subject is kept indefinitely. (I have no opinion on this subject's notability, though.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I refer you to WP:PG; "policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." (I do have an opinion on this subject's notability - not notable.) DocumentError (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Carrite, your understanding is incorrect. The Austrian pro league is in fact not a "top-level" league. The International Ice Hockey Federation ranks the Austrian league at no better than Europe's 11th most prominent professional league, and the league assessment that the Ice Hockey WikiProject has recently undertaken places it at no higher than criterion #4, which would require a player to have been a First Team All-Star or a top ten all-time career scorer. Dolovis' blatant bad faith concerning the text of WP:NHOCKEY's criteria -- which I invite you to read yourself -- is a growing issue. Ravenswing 08:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just read WP:NHOCKEY and, as it stands (at least to someone unfamiliar with ice hockey leagues), User:Dolovis's implicit assertion that the Austrian Hockey League meets criterion #1 (seeing that that seems to be the only way the subject could currently meet WP:NHOCKEY) looks like a somewhat plausible if by no means automatic reading of the criteria - though by the literal reading of the criteria and the relevant Wikipedia articles, it does look as if the Austrian Hockey League would currently meet criterion #3. However, you actually seem to be basing your argument on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment, a page apparently constructed in the last two weeks entirely by yourself, though with enough feedback from other Wikiproject Ice Hockey participants to suggest that it is generally in accord with majority project consensus. As it looks much easier to apply than the current WP:NHOCKEY, I rather expect that the current discussion at WT:Notability (sports) will agree to use it as clarification of WP:NHOCKEY - but that discussion does need to take place first. PWilkinson (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NHOCKEY, like all SNGs, only presume notability. They do not guarantee it. The only coverage on this player appears to be routine, and unless those advocating keep can find some significant sources, this article falls on the wrong side of that presumed notability. Resolute 01:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NHOCKEY only presumes notability. If you can't find some sources that proove he passes GNG (which I could not) then he should be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG and NHOCKEY, which as I understand was never intended to be inclusive of top professional leagues in any given country (intended to be top pro leagues in the world). Hwy43 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sawyer_Hannay&oldid=1071589315"