Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Watkins


 * 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 the topic is likely notable per NHOCKEY #3 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 20:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Joe Watkins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Highest North American league played was the ECHL which doesn't grant notability unless preeminent honours are achieved, and the subject has none, so fails #3. EPIHL First All-Star does not qualify for #4 and never played in the top pool of the IIHF World Championship with Great Britain which fails #6. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment He twice won the British Netminder of the Year, which is presented to the the top goalie regardless of the league. He won it while playing in the EPIHL over goalies who played in the top tier EIHL, twice. That appears to me to satisfy criterion #3 but I am not fully convinced. I will wait for others to chime in before I am persuaded one way or another.18abruce (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Based on 18abruce's description, I would interpret Watkins as meeting #3. It is clearly an odd situation, but if he was officially recognized as the best goalie in the country in competition with EIHL goalies, I'd have to give him credit for pre-eminent honors. Rlendog (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Keep I am comfortable with saying that he meets criterion 3 but I recognize that there is some ambiguity.18abruce (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Undecided I agree with 18abruce that it would be reasonable to claim criterion 3 is met, but I have some concerns. First, does he look good to the writers because he's playing against lesser competition?  Second, if he's better than all of the goalies in the higher league, why didn't any of those teams sign him?  I'm inclined to think that the people who run hockey teams for a living are better judges of talent than local sportswriters.  Just saying. Papaursa (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep Djsasso makes a good point below. I also think the fact that he won that award twice is important, otherwise I might be inclined to cite WP:BLP1E.  Although the article doesn't cite sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, it seems like that award should have generated some coverage.  That he meets WP:NHOCKEY shows that this is another example that most of our sports notability criteria don't set a very high bar for notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One thing to remember is that WP:NHOCKEY isn't about skill, its about how likely the player is to have news coverage. So does winning that award make him likely enough to get enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC) Weak Keep, as I think it can be argued that he ought to meet WP:NHOCKEY #3, albeit barely. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2019 (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.