Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Jasmina Decu


 * 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies.  So Why  07:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Maria Jasmina Decu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Another in a very long string of articles about NN female Turkish hockey players, and at least we've put to rest the inane notion that they possibly satisfy any element of NHOCKEY, which they do not. No evidence the subject meets the GNG.   Ravenswing   14:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Since women's leagues are not even mentioned in the NHOCKEY guideline, I wonder why you refer to it so often for articles about women's ice hockey? Yes, WP:GNG (which supersedes NHOCKEY anyhow) must be met and must be met for any male player articles as well. Hmlarson (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply: The fundamental question we need to ask of any article in terms of its suitability for Wikipedia is "Upon what basis does the article creator assert notability?" Here, it's that the subject's a hockey player.  There's a guideline that sets forth the standards of notability for hockey players, which the subject here fails to meet, and which is entirely appropriate to cite.   Ravenswing   07:41, 27 August 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.