Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksi Heponiemi (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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksi Heponiemi[edit]

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

Would have speedied this as recreation of deleted content but there is more information in this one than the last one so it didn't seem appropriate. That being said the subject is still a non-notable junior hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to meet NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 22:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep doesn't his recent selection of first all-star team (not sure about most sportsmanlike) make it now meet the WP hockey?

http://scbroncos.com/article/aleksi-heponiemi-named-whl-eastern-conference-most-sportsmanlike-player Triggerbit (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is he wasn't a WHL first team all-star, he was a first team all-star in the Eastern Conference--not the same thing. I also don't think the conference "most sportsmanlike player" is sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As best I can tell, he doesn't meet either WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was recently named a first team WHL all star, so should now meet NHOCKEY. I was also able to find coverage at HockeyWriters here and here, DUBNetwork, Sun Sentinal here, Finnish source such as this, and multiple short paragraphs on him in The Hockey News such as this, this and here. So I think there is enough coverage to meet notability guidelines now. Rlendog (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above he was named to the conference first all-star which doesn't meet NHOCKEY. NHOCKEY requires league first all-star (WHL doesn't do a league one). Almost all of those sources you point to are routine coverage, prospect lists. Not really in depth at all. There is one there that is definitely better from the Sun Sentinel. But the rest really don't live up to the requirements for in depth coverage to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's true he's in multiple articles that are lists (or updates) of good "prospects", but that term alone implies they're not yet notable so I'm having trouble viewing those as significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The Sun Sentinel is the largest circulation paper in South Florida, which includes the home of the Florida Panthers who drafted Heponiemi and this appears to be an article looking at a potential player for the local NHL team so I'm inclined to think of this as typical coverage of an NHL draftee. He's clearly a promising prospect, but sports have many of those who never become WP notable. This might be a good candidate to return to draft space as a case of WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2018 (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.