Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kailer Yamamoto


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Kailer Yamamoto

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. It is also WP:TOOSOON – Sabbatino (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added more reliable sources per your speedy-deletion tag and this is your response? Hm. Delete a page with good sources but not pages for other top prospects with less sources and less points in the Canadian Hockey League (Gabriel Vilardi, Stelio Mattheos, Maxime Comtois, Michael Rasmussen and Callan Foote). Makes sense. You'd think being a guaranteed first rounder for months,  and winning Bronze with Team USA's Under 18 would be enough. I'm for keep because in the end there's going to be a page for him anyway, it makes absolutely no difference if you decide to delete him now. --Count3D (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that you are a relatively new user in terms of edits (~11 years does not mean anything), you should really read those policies I listed. I did everything accordingly when you removed the PROD tag. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird how this relatively new user recognized there shouldn't have been a tag to begin with while an experienced user did not. Thank you for clarifying wikipedia policy, I look forward to remembering this conversation the next time an experienced user inadvertently tags one of my pages.--Count3D (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is useless to discuss anything with you as you are getting personal towards simple and correct procedure. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: Frankly, I'm not remotely moved by Certain! First! Rounder! arguments, because in the half-century I've been following hockey, I've seen any number of Certain! First! Rounders! drop by the wayside. I'm also not moved by the number of blogsites and primary sources being passed off as meeting the requirements of the GNG, which they most certainly do not.  Nor does playing for the U18 team meet any notability requirements, least of all WP:NHOCKEY, nor am I particularly moved by what the ranking toutsheets were saying a few months ago, because in the end result, exactly how many 5'8" forwards get drafted first round in today's NHL? (And, finally, taking an article to AfD after a speedy tag's been removed is exactly proper procedure, and scarcely an outrage.)  But that being said, the Spokesman-Review and THN sources are good ones, and so this is a bare GNG pass.   Ravenswing   19:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - adequate coverage to meet GNG. Besides the references already in the article there are a few others available, including this. Rlendog (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think a case could be made for #2 on NHOCKEY given his time in the WHL and his age (professional leagues are not an option for all but the most elite 18-year-olds). However, that's probably a stretch. However, the external references I think are probably enough to pass GNG and WP:YOUNGATH South Nashua (talk) 18:16, 9 May 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.