Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Refika Yılmaz

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) 19:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refika Yılmaz

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

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given Hmlarson's curious argument that NHOCKEY isn't valid as a deletion ground because NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to female players, my retort continues to be that as long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. Ravenswing 11:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. This appears to be a relatively lengthy interview with the player which goes some way towards GNG, but I would need to see more than a single source providing significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 30 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.