Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devon Levi

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Levi[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article was tagged for WP:PROD as it fails WP:NHOCKEY. However the tag was removed, but I still contend that he fails notability. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still contend that the player more than passes GNG, through multiple sources focusing on him. There is even a newspaper article that discusses his childhood background. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to disagree with the nominator here. Independent reliable sources give the subject significant coverage enough to pass the basic WP:N guideline. Inclusion is met regardless of any presumed notability by a SNG. Even Sports Illustrated jumped in the fray. Beyond that, full feature articles in CBC, TSN, Sporting News, Fox Sports as well as multiple Jewish specific media outlets more than get him over GNG, forget any SNG. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If WP:NHOCKEY is used to justify deletion of this page, the same would have to be done for pretty much every single player here 2021 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships rosters, including the ones who won awards at the tournament: 2021 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships#Awards. In terms of notability, Levi was the most notable player of the tournament, at least in the Canadian media. -- Wikkiwonkk (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikkiwonkk: I am undecided about his case for GNG, but I think if you look a little more carefully you will discover that he is the only award winner from the junior tournament that does not meet NHOCKEY. The majority of players at the world juniors are in the WP:TOOSOON category, which I believe includes Levi, but many from the rosters of the contenders do qualify under NHOCKEY, so I am not sure what your point is. Usually a discussion for inclusion should cite the sources that validate their inclusion, that has not happened yet. I would like to see the sources @Tsistunagiska: is alluding to before deciding.18abruce (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@18abruce: I seriously misread part of the NHOCKEY list, so you are right, the number of players on the 2021 rosters that do not meet the criteria is about ten, much smaller than I first thought. My bad, thanks for prodding me to take a closer look. -- Wikkiwonkk (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18abruce Wikipedia requires that every editor who chooses to !vote on an AfD conduct a WP:BEFORE search and expects that those cognizant enough to edit and create articles on the encyclopedia should also be able to read and comprehend the information they find in doing said search. We are not supposed to only look at the sources provided within the article. Do the search and make your own evaluation. You got this. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 13:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG with significant coverage from articles about him in reliable sources, including sources as diverse as Sports Illustrated and The Jerusalem Post. NHOCKEY is irrelevant once GNG is passed. Rlendog (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak delete. Generally, I'd say that Levi currently fails to reach notability as outlined in WP:NHOCKEY. However, I also think his article features independent reliable sources which can be seen as a good argument to keep the article. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not reaching the criteria of NHOCKEY is not in itself a reason to delete the article. according to NSPORT, of which NHOCKEY is one element: "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." So typically a subject that fails NHOCKEY would likely not meet our general notability criteria, but for those that happen to pass our general notability criteria failing NHOCKEY gives no reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to know, thanks for sharing that information with me. I'm inclined to change my opinion to keep for this article. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2021 (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.