Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ève Gascon


 * 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. Consensus is that the article subject passes WP:GNG, even if not by much and even if they don't meet WP:NHOCKEY. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ève Gascon

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Although the criteria for WP:NHOCKEY are more vague for women than they are for men, she still fails. Particularly, point #6 specifies that only playing on a senior national team for the World Championship qualifies for notability, and she only played on a U18 team. Give her a few years.  Kncny11  (shoot) 18:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Kncny11  (shoot) 18:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Kncny11  (shoot) 18:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Kncny11  (shoot) 18:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  Kncny11  (shoot) 18:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BASIC. Regardless of the weirdly specific and arbitrary per-sport guidelines, she has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. These are well past the WP:ROUTINE coverage one might expect for the average athlete. Examples already in the article include Hockey News Canada ("The Masked History Maker") and Le Journal de Quebec ("Une gardienne en renfort"). These are both profiles of the subject, demonstrating that she passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: As it happens, the NHOCKEY guidelines are the result of painful years of Wikilawyers gaming the initial common sense rules; the one I figure pburka's complaining about comes from that there are "world championship" competitions involving 14 year olds and fringe nations that will never, ever come anywhere near close to a genuine world championship. It is no more "arbitrary" than every other single notability guideline or criterion on Wikipedia.  Further, pburka's analysis is off: of the two sources cited above, hockeycanada.ca is the umbrella organization governing the teenage national team for which the subject played (and is thus a primary source), while the other is an interview of the subject, and therefore cannot be used to support the subject's notability. That being said, there are two reliable, independent, third-party sources in the article giving substantive coverage (La Presse and Radio-Canada), just barely enough to squeak by.   Ravenswing      02:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right about Hockey Canada. I had misidentified the source as The Hockey News, an independent news source, but I was mistaken. pburka (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - although I agree with ' "weak" categorization. When I reviewed the article, I felt there was barely enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, without having to go into the NHOCKEY SNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.