Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betül Kahraman

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betül Kahraman

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passing NHOCKEY is not relevant here. She passes WP:GNG, which supersedes, this based on the Turkish media coverage. This includes a number of mentions in the regional publication Çağdaş Kocaeli, along with additional mentions in the national press sportstv, Doğan Haber Ajansı and Fanatik and national online newspaper Haberler. --LauraHale (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per the excellent work by LauraHale. At that point, WP:NHOCKEY is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite the claims that there are numerous sources for this player, LauraHale correctly states they are "mentions". Mentions are not significant coverage per GNG, specifically: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The first source listed is likely the best as she was interviewed about why she plays hockey, although the article is not specifically about her as she is one of several interviewed. 2 and 3 are stats pages. 4 is a photo where she is mentioned in the caption. 5 (and 6 as a reprint of the same article) are WP:ROUTINE coverage of a game where she is listed as a team member. 7 is more routine game coverage where she is only mentioned because it was her 17th birthday. 8 and 9 is more routine game coverage where she scored a point. 10 is about the team, she is mentioned in passing. 11, 12 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 are all ended with lists of the members of the team, of which she was one. 23 lists her as a trainer. Which one of these articles merits GNG? Yosemiter (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Yosemiter, to whom I'm grateful for doing the legwork on a couple of these AfDs so that I don't have to do so. I remain dismayed that LauraHale and Smartyllama are pulling knee-jerk Keeps on these Turkish women's hockey articles without coming up with a single cite that meets the GNG's requirements, and are notably silent when asked to identify specific cites they claim do. Ravenswing 01:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a member of the Turkey women's national ice hockey team. Victuallers (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ... which satisfies no notability criteria; NHOCKEY does not, nor ever has, confer presumptive notability to people who simply have belonged to national teams. Would you like to advocate a legitimate criterion to keep? Ravenswing 14:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced (ignoring the fact that 11 of those sources are present simply to confirm two statements - complete overkill), however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Furthermore, I'm seeing significant elements of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She plays for Ankara University SK, which competes in the Turkish Women's Ice Hockey League - a semi-professional league which is the highest level of women's ice hockey in Turkey. Passes WP:NHOCKEY point 2. Narky Blert (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Narky Blert: please re-read NHOCKEY again, nowhere does it ever mention highest league in a country. There is nothing preventing her ("lack of access") from playing in higher leagues. But even then, women's leagues have not yet proven to have inherently pre-established notability, unless they have played in the top level IIHF tournament or the Olympics. So she must pass GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: Do you think she should emigrate? Narky Blert (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: It is more about what #2 actually means (especially if you read the first line in NHOCKEY telling you use the list of known GNG leagues for player notability). #2 specifically refers to a time when players could not play for a professional or higher level league at all, primarily when there were no professional leagues anywhere (pre-NHL) and Eastern Bloc "amateur" leagues (they were amateur by strict definition only because the government prevented them from being professional or emigrating). In this case, there is nothing barring from emigrating if she really wanted to try to make a NWHL team (which also has no inherent notability for players). But since NHOCKEY does not really apply to women's leagues, then GNG is the only applicable guideline and you can read my previous analysis of the sources found in the above comments. Yosemiter (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: I'm tempted to call this WP:LAWYERING. Narky Blert (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: That seems a stretch as one of the primary authors of NHOCKEY is User:Ravenswing. Considering NHOCKEY is governed and written by the ice hockey wikiproject, do you think that we haven't done some research into it before making it a guideline? The hardest part about the guideline (which is still subject to GNG, even if a player meets the SNG, they can be deleted for not meeting the GNG) is the phrasing. How do you propose we write #2 with the intent of my above paragraph? (Feel free to comment at this discussion were we are currently looking at removing entirely.) Yosemiter (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not only tempted to suggest that you're making up your own idiosyncratic interpretation of what you want the criterion to say as opposed to what it really does say, I'm giving in to that temptation. As it happens, Yosemiter is right. I'm the author of the NHOCKEY criteria, and that's exactly what Criterion #2 was intended to address. Further, no level of women's hockey is supported by NHOCKEY, as has been stated exhaustively in many places and many discussions, for the unfortunate reason that nowhere in the world does any level of women's hockey receive enough coverage so as to presumptively declare every female hockey player notable. There is one exception, and one exception alone, which are women hockey players competing in the Olympic Games (that being covered under WP:NOLYMPICS). Ravenswing 19:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To back up Ravenswing and Yosemiter, both of whom spend an awful lot of time on the sport and checking into references, the critereon says nothing about "top level in a nation" at all. Perhaps other sport guidelines do, the hockey guideline is not here to be fair or represent equality, it is here to represent the expectation for notability. I don't understand how it could be wikilawyering for someone to try to explain what was misunderstood to you.18abruce (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY, and I can't find anything that would give a male player a GNG pass, so it probably is a fail for a female player as well.18abruce (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No English sources to show notability, and no article on the Turkish Wikipedia either. [[1]] Her career predated the Turkish ban so there should be something. There should be an article on her there first before she can be considered notable here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't find the argument "if [one or another female hockey player in a Turkish semi-professional league] were notable, there would already be an article about her in the Turkish Wikipedia" compelling. New articles about notable topics are still being added to the English Wikipedia every day; not all of them are newly notable on the day their article goes live, either. The lack of an article is not ipso facto proof that one was proposed and rejected as lacking notability. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 20:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you if that were the only criteria we were using. I'm saying that after we've exhausted English sourcing and still can't agree, that it's one more argument tipping the scales against notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another example of a player who meets none of the criteria at WP:NHOCKEY or WP:NSPORTS and whose claims to meeting WP:GNG are based solely on routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2017 (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.