Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylan Anlar

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taylan Anlar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's written that Anlar played for a club in the highest level of an ice hockey league in Turkey. If that's the case, the article meets WP:NHOCKEY. - TheMagnificentist 05:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question And which criterion does that fulfill? None of them in hockey, you must be thinking of a different sport.18abruce (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NHOCKEY guidelines point to this list to enumerate the "top league" criterion, and there's nothing in relation to Turkey there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He plays in the top Turkish league. the criteria states "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant". CeeGee 05:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Turkish league is not listed here [1] as being part of that list. So therefore the player fails notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily the ultimate notability checklist for ice hockey. The list was mostly written by a regular user "Ravenswing", probably based on their personal interest in the sport. — TheMagnificentist 14:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the list was probably written "based on their personal interest in the sport" Are you accusing @Ravenswing: of bad faith? Joeykai (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why, yes, indeed, I would not have initiated that list if I had no personal interest in the sport, and no one would've taken the effort seriously if I hadn't spent a decade on Wikipedia demonstrating that I knew what I was talking about. Would you rather such a list be created by someone with neither interest in, nor knowledge of, ice hockey? Do you have such interest or expertise yourself? If there is a league notability list you feel is more accurate, would you link to it, please, and explain why you feel it's more accurate?

The reason, by the bye, for the phrasing of Criterion #2 is twofold. First off, as happened with many team sports, ice hockey's top leagues predated the era of professional sports, and the first fully professional leagues didn't appear until the 20th century. Secondly, Iron Curtain nations such as the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia did not permit "professional" leagues to exist, yet maintained high levels of play through their official "amateur" leagues. Criterion #2 was never meant to suggest (and indeed does not) the patently absurd premise that amateur level play is presumptively notable worldwide. Ravenswing 22:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played in the top-level national league in his country. Essays aren't authoritative and may be incomplete in terms of leagues possible. Guidelines trump them. Smartyllama (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Except the guidelines do not support this players inclusion, "top-level national national league in his country is not there", please take time to read the guidelines before basing your argument on them.18abruce (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- +1 to 18abruce. Beyond that, are you asserting that list is incomplete? If so, upon what basis? Are you asserting that the Turkish hockey league generates so much media attention that every one of its players is automatically notable? If so, where is your evidence of this? Ravenswing 22:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And GNG trumps any sports-specific guideline (which were written with the intent that any that meet the SSG would also likely meet GNG. Finding some reliable independent sources would be the only way forward for this article (as well as building a case into adding any Turkish leagues to the SSG). Yosemiter (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheMagnificentist. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 15:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "top-level national league in his country" is irrelevant and not included in any criteria. To be a "top league" it has to demonstate that even a nominal player receives enough coverage to satisfy GNG. How can experienced editors vote keep for a criteria that is not included in WP:NHOCKEY. The accompanying list provided is a detailed list, tested through consensus, that illustrates which leagues we should expect players to pass GNG. The Turkish league clearly is not among those we would expect that. It still remains possible that this player passes GNG, but I see no evidence of this.18abruce (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I completely agree that "top-level national league in his country" is irrelevant, not included in any hockey-related notability criteria on Wikipedia, and any assertion to the contrary is sheer invention on the part of any editor making it. The reason we do have a supporting list of leagues which meet the criteria (something done by the other team-related sports Wikiprojects) is the painfully obvious fact that some levels of sport are more noteworthy than others. The reason we don't (and never have) asserted that the topmost league in any given nation-state confers presumptive notability on everyone is the equally painfully obvious fact that it would grant the same presumptive notability to beer league players in Peru or San Marino who've played a minute of action as to NHL or KHL players who've played five hundred games, an absurdity on any level. This particular player meets no notability criterion, nor has evidence he meets the GNG been proffered. Ravenswing 22:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nowhere does NHOCKEY mention "in a country" so he fails #1. He fails #2 because there is nothing that bars him from playing a higher professional league.Since this person fails NHOCKEY, he must stand or fall on GNG, and unless someone can find some solid articles, he fails. Yosemiter (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOCKEY as NHOCKEY specifically refers to the list of leagues which meat each criteria. Criteria #2 refers to leagues which existed prior to the sport becoming professional. But regardless of that, it fails GNG which trumps NHOCKEY anyway. -DJSasso (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Playing in the top Turkish hockey league does not meet WP:NHOCKEY, nor does appearing in lower level tiers of the IIHF championships. There's also no indication that he has the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Playing in Turkey's top league establishes no credibility for inclusion. Clear WP:GNG failure as well. Deadman137 (talk) 22:38, 12 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.