- Nail Yakupov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Currently located at User:CycloneGU/Nail Yakupov Due to recreation attempts, the article has been restored to its original location pending the outcome of this discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nail Yakupov has now been named OHL Rookie of the Year with the highest possible score for the nomination (article details that). Article is currently located here, where it was userfied despite agreement from others to hold off on the deletion proceeding until after the award was announced. I have not done any further editing to the page in my user space yet (anyone who wishes may do so, I permit it), but I am seeking permission to move the page back to its old location to work on as a typical rookie can get no higher notability than a Rookie of the Year award, the highest type of notability said rookies can get. He is notable now without question even if the prior article wasn't considered such. CycloneGU (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The commenters in the deletion debate said things like: "as he hasn't met any of the requirements of WP:NHOCKEY, incidently winning rookie of the year would still not do that", "there can be a case for rookie of the year being one, something that will probably have to be argued once he has won it", "There will still be debate about notability of ROY". So presenting it as "notable now without question" seems somewhat disingenuous, you know for certain there are questions. That said it sounds like there was an acknowledgment the situation would be far enough different, so I suggest you do the editing, this gets moved back to mainspace and then can be nominated for deletion if anyone still thinks ROY isn't enough. i.e. you should do the work before it moves, not after. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, I have been planning to, I just found the news before going to bed yesterday and wasn't doing any editing during that time, only notifications to the participants in the last discussion. I know better than to edit before bed. =) I'll be figuring out the add today sometime. CycloneGU (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse AFD as reasonably closed. Since the article wasn't salted, any editor may recreate it with additional claims of notability, which appears to be what's proposed here. If more input is requested, there are better places to solicit it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from closer: I suggested he come here because it's the most conclusive venue to establish a consensus that notability has changed since the AFD, so as to preclude speedy deletion or AFD relisting if he were to just take it upon himself to recreate it (or preclude him recreating it if the subject still isn't notable). He should further cross-post notice of this DRV to an appropriate Wikiproject and the AFD participants. I am completely neutral as to whether the new development is enough to obviate the AFD deletion, and I don't take this DRV as a referendum on the reasonableness of my close, but purely a presentation of changed circumstances since the AFD. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note regarding above - All participants in the previous discussion have already been notified before I went to bed yesterday. Wikiproject crossposting isn't done yet, never thought about that. Further, I agree with the above statement that this isn't to question his close, I'm simply following his suggestion to use this venue instead of moving the article back since concerns may still exist on notability even with OHL Rookie of the Year. The CHL one won't be announced for another 2 months I think, so we're still waiting on that. Update - Ravendrop already added it. CycloneGU (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think ROTY in the three CHL leagues meets NHOCKEY (it was used as part of the criteria for Ryan Nugent-Hopkins in that recent AfD. So, basically I think the close at the time was correct, but I think he now meets the notability critera, so I guess I fall under Recreate. Canada Hky (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, someone else recently recreated the article. I have requested it be speedily deleted. I will move my existing page into place after the duplicate is removed so as to further facilitate discussion and so that the page is not repeatedly recreated. CycloneGU (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Carry on discussion with the article in place, anyone wishing to add to the article can now do so without threat of deletion as I will still want it userfied and salted if deletion is still endorsed. CycloneGU (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose For what its worth, I think the article should be kept userfied (and redeleted/salted) per failing WP:NHOCKEY. I would consider the CHL (and not anyone of the WHL, OHL, or QMJHL) as the top league, and the three merely as parts of the same league. Therefore, I believe that CHL Rookie of the Year would qualify for notability, but that OHL would not (it would be similar in my mind to a conference Rookie of the Year in the NHL, which, besides the fact that its the NHL, wouldn't be notable as the top ROY award, the calder still would be). Ravendrop 18:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote from WP:NHOCKEY: "4. Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, won a major award given by the league, first team all-star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as those of the Canadian Hockey League..." - In other words, Yakupov has won the Emms Family Award, how does he not now meet WP:NHOCKEY? Also, he meets WP:GNG now per information below. And while I'm not making this article myself (it was also previously deleted), his teammate Alex Galchenyuk made first all-rookie team with Yakupov; both are probably notable now, but Yakupov more than Galchenyuk. CycloneGU (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore to mainspace If the argument was (and it seems to be) that GNG and ANYBIO were met, but NHOCKEY was not, then there was no reason for this to have been deleted in the first place. SNGs are logically and'ed with the GNG: if any article topic passes the GNG or any SNG, it's notable. The discussion, both in the AfD and above, doesn't seem to reflect that. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me provide some independent sources, then. Brandon Sun and ourstcatherines.com are just two independent sources, and they are covering the Rookie of the Year announcement. Granted, they'd probably cover it for any player who wins it, because they are presuming he will be a future NHL star whoever it is...but it does meet GNG coverage. CycloneGU (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The relationship between specific SNGs and the GNG varies, but for sports-related SNGs, I think the terms of a sport-specific SNG should control absent unusual circumstances. Most pro team sports (at least in North America, the market we're dealing with) are covered extensively by the press, and the SNGs provide useful rules of thumb to distinguish between routine/superficial coverage and the more substantial coverage that demonstrates notability. Therefore, I see no reason not to retain the current version of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what the criteria state. The secondary criteria are just that, secondary. NSPORTS states "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." and goes onto set out a basic criteria which matches the GNG. So yes meeting the GNG is all that is required for inclusion, but meeting a SNG on it's own may not be. --82.7.34.193 (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
