Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Ludwig

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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Ludwig[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. See also Trevor Ludwig deletion discussion. Iheartthestrals (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Blatant failure of WP:BEFORE, as Ludwig was a two-time First Team All-Star in his league, a fact prominently highlighted in his article and which meets criterion #4 of NHOCKEY. As such (and as winning the CHL's final Most Outstanding Defenseman award), odds are quite likely that sources satisfying the GNG are out there. Ravenswing 06:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the sources are out there, I'm having a bad time finding them. There is a short ESPN blog entry from 2012 that is basically a WP:NOTINHERITED situation since it was really only written because of their father's notabiliy. Nothing on highbeam, Nothing else on Google. Reso lute 17:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have located a mere two articles that mention Ludwig's name. The majority of articles when you search for 'Tyler Ludwig Texas Stars/Houston Aeros/San Antonio Rampage' reference Tyler Seguin and Ludwig Blomstrand individually. These are the articles, and the second one is actually about his brother but mentions him:

[1] [2]

Both of these articles are from Dallas Blackout, which, as far as I can tell, is a Dallas Stars news site. Iheartthestrals (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I would call that site a credible source. I was able to dig up one link that should help assess his notability. [3]

It is very tough to find articles on this player, for now I will weakly support deletion as I don't think he can pass GNG. If there are more articles that can be found from other sources that aren't routine sports coverage then I'll be willing to reconsider my current position. Deadman137 (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't call it reliable either, but they are the only two articles I was able to locate. True, he passes WP:NHOCKEY no. 4, but fails utterly WP:GNG, so I would sanction deletion also. One thing I might mention is that the CHL is no longer in operation, so does it still apply for a defunct league? Iheartthestrals (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would still apply for a defunct league as the surviving teams from this league joined the ECHL. Deadman137 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete marginal player. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1st team all star in CHL meets criterion #4 of WP:NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if not kept, it should be redirected to the "Personal" section of Craig Ludwig, which mentions him, and the information about his awards should be merged there. Rlendog (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2016 (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.