Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Bloodoff (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Bloodoff[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Still fails WP:NHOCKEY ~~(and fairly certain it failed NHOCKEY in 2011 when it was recreated)~~. Yosemiter (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: was actually re-created in 2013 when the player hit 100 games in AHL and ECHL when that was the criterion for minimum games in professional leagues at that time (I had 2011 in my head from when he started his pro career, a common time for the article's creator to have made articles). However, my nomination still stands; does not meet the current, stricter NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Delete: Ironically, his credentials today would have met the 2011 standards, but with what he'd achieved by 2011 (to wit, nothing), he wouldn't have then. Certainly doesn't meet the current, tighter standards. Ravenswing 04:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning toward weak keep~~ - Neither NSPORTS nor GNG is an absolute rule. They are created to tell editors how to determine notability/importance of this person and his career. I searched for the news articles about this person. According to this article, the guy renewed his contract with the Florida Everblades hockey team. ~~This shows that his notability is not temporary; it is sustained (proven substantial).~~ Somehow, WP:WHYN and WP:NPF explain attempts to limit number of articles about low-profile persons, especially to prevent Wikipedia from being used as means of promotion. ~~However, even when the person fails GNG, the person may still be notable, and WP:V#Notability is already met.~~ --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC); modified, 06:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC); partially struck, 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Notability is not temporary is only used if the person was ever actually notable. In the second recreation in 2013, he met the looser criteria NHOCKEY guideline. Since then, it was found that many hockey players who met that guideline did not meet WP:GNG and as such, NHOCKEY has become much stricter to weed out those that are not up to snuff. (read User talk:Dolovis for a list of deleted articles on the low-level player pages he created and one of the primary reasons NHOCKEY had to become stricter.) Yes, it is possible to still be notable and not meet the standards, but GNG is usually the go-to standard for notability. The source you brought up is about a player signing, something that is a run-of-the-mill press release from a local paper and what hockey would define as routine coverage which is usually not suitable as a source for proving notability in GNG (must have multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources). If your argument to keep is "even when the person fails GNG, the person may still be notable, and WP:V#Notability is already met", then my response is that notability (after GNG and WP:V) was never met to begin with. Yosemiter (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about delete per what you said... and WP:NPF? Creating an article about a non-notable person would violate not just GNG but also BLP, especially WP:NPF. Also, I bet it would be used as means of promotion, which is discouraged. --George Ho (talk) 14:14, 25 June 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.