Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Lee (ice hockey)


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Aaron Lee (ice hockey)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Career low minor-leaguer who fails WP:NHOCKEY. Mentions in reliable sources are all routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:GNG.   Ravenswing   23:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * He seems to be playing in the top Danish league right now. That may not be enough for WP:NHOCKEY but I think it is more significant (and suggests more potential for existence of sources, albeit possibly not in English) than just a career low minor leaguer. Rlendog (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: And if anyone finds multiple reliable sources that satisfy WP:ROUTINE, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination.   Ravenswing   19:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - playing in the premiere ice hockey league in Denmark appears to meet the first criterion of WP:NHOCKEY.--Rpclod (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. Please see WP:NHOCKEY/LA.  The Danish league is a relatively unimportant one ranked well back on the IIHF's table.   Ravenswing   12:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ravenswing. While I agree with Rlendog that the subject is close to ice hockey notability, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we can't assume the subject will achieve notability.  Accordingly, I deleted my "weak keep" recommendation and replace with delete.  Hopefully an author will userfy in the chance that the subject meets notability criteria in the future.--Rpclod (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. Deadman137 (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't go beyond routine coverage, so fails WP:GNG. Comes quite close to passing WP:NHOCKEY (reserve on All-Star team of CHL for Criterion #4), but isn't quite there. ~ RobTalk 05:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For future reference, in order for Criterion #4 to be applied he would have had to be a first team all-star for the season, playing in an all-star game means nothing for the project. Deadman137 (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was noting that he was a reserve, not a first-team, so doesn't meat Criterion #4. Close, but no cigar. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding how "all-star" is structured in hockey; I was assuming it was similar to gridiron football's structure. ~ RobTalk 02:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hockey, like most other sports, have all-star games, in which a small horde of players play. At the low minor league level, that doesn't generate any coverage.  But -- again, like many other sports -- hockey leagues usually have a season-ending All-Star Team, comprised of the best player at each position.  We judge that even at a lower league, someone judged a First Team All-Star (hence the wording in NHOCKEY) probably receives coverage which would meet the GNG.   Ravenswing   04:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I stepped on any toes, I was just trying to clarify how Criterion #4 has been interpreted in the past. Deadman137 (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (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.