Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fulya Yurt


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Fulya Yurt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  06:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  06:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  06:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Given Hmlarson's curious argument that NHOCKEY isn't valid as a deletion ground because NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to female players, my retort continues to be that as long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. Nor does the subject meet the criteria of NGOLF.   Ravenswing   11:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Her golf career is so minor as to obviously fail WP:NGOLF and at such a low level that it is inconceivable sufficient coverage could exist to satisfy GNG as a golfer. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete if people want another league to give default notability, they should seek to change the notability guidelines for hockey players, not ignore them. Is it just me or does hockey have a high rate of the creation of articles on non-notable players? This may indicate that our guidelines on other sports need to be tightened.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply: A lot of it comes from two factors. We had an editor who was prolific, obsessed with his article creation count, and hell bent on defying the criteria and consensus to create as many articles as he wanted; it took a community ban to shut him down at the last. The second was a bad mistake I made when I originally drafted NHOCKEY; I presumed good faith on the part of hockey article creators, that they'd exercise good sense in realizing what the criteria meant, that they'd agree to be governed by consensus in case of disputes, and that they wouldn't bring their own shibboleths and hobby horses to the process, and therefore I didn't need to go to the point I did at the last and spell out each and every league at each and every level.  That was badly naive of me, and a great deal of work and angst among a great many editors over the years has been the result, for which I am deeply sorry.   Ravenswing   17:57, 4 September 2017 (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.