Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinem Yalçındağ


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Sinem Yalçındağ

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person and fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Question does know that WP:GNG supercedes WP:NHOCKEY? Hmlarson (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently not, because a recent spat of badminton articles I nominated were voted keep, using WP:Badminton as justification, when most if not all had next to none GNG coverage. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT. Article could use expansion, not deletion, per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep She officiated at the 2016 IIHF Women's World Championship Division II. CeeGee 11:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: What notability criterion do you claim that meets?   Ravenswing   20:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG per above. Clearly nominator didn't do any WP:BEFORE as evidenced by his mass AfD's and PRODs all within a very short timespan. Maybe it's time we take this to [{WP:ANI]]? It's getting out of hand. Smartyllama (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Clearly you didn't even take the most cursory look at ANY of the sources in the article before a reflexive Keep vote, and what I find troubling is you chasing the nom around removing his prods and voting Keep on his AfDs with such lack of examination of the merits. Which of them do you claim provide coverage in "substantial detail" to the subject?   Ravenswing   15:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment There is nothing in this player's bio that passes WP:NHOCKEY, and I don't see a list of sources that evidence a passing of GNG, so I don't understand what the issue is. There is not one argument here yet that illustrates a GNG pass and a google search only yielded many databases or summaries of game action so I don't get it.  Happy to be proven wrong, but please can someone at least highlight some independent non-routine coverage of this athlete before attacking the nominator.  I know guys who play in the highest level in Thailand, are they automatically notable if they are in a database and have coverage of a game they play in?18abruce (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally bizarre that editors are making the claim that she passes GNG when all the evidence is incomplete database entries or game summaries. If the top european databases available can't even supply place of birth or club team participation what chance is there that an athlete in the internet age is in any way notable.18abruce (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: No evidence the subject meets the GNG. None at all, and were we going to take anyone to ANI, I'd just as soon it be the people tossing around bad faith accusations when it's plain they've not taken so much as a cursory look at the sources involved.  The GNG stipulates that a source provide the subject coverage in "significant detail" to qualify as supporting notability.  Simple namedrops do not, and never have, qualified.  As far as NHOCKEY goes, it's an unfortunate fact of the regard women's hockey is held in worldwide that no level of women's play (save for participation at the Olympic Games, which falls under a different SNG) is prominent enough to meet any element of NHOCKEY, and individual players rise and fall on the GNG. As far as the Keep voters go, they've been challenged repeatedly to back their votes up with the specific cites they think meet the GNG.  So far, in none of these Turkish hockey AfDs, has a single one of them responded, and they haven't here either.   Ravenswing   15:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: After a news search, I found maybe one article that may have some significant coverage. But since I cannot read Turkish and Google Translate is only so-so, it read as if she was a part of a complaint against their federation or a coach in one of tournaments. However, this is still not enough for GNG as it needs multiple, significant, independent, and reliable sources; not just the WP:ROUTINE coverage this player has. As for NHOCKEY, I have no idea why someone would think the top level Turkish league has the same pass/fail criteria as the KHL/NHL/Liiga or would interpret NHOCKEY in that way. Yosemiter (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't remotely meet NHOCKEY. And I can not find any sources that cover them in significant detail. Only database mentions which means they don't meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Of all of the Turkish ice hockey players nominated for deletion, this to me is the one that is most clearly the most notable based on the depth of coverage by the Turkish media. She has been covered in multiple publications dating back to 2006.  This coverage dates back to 2006 and her time on the national field hockey team, her participation on the national ice hockey team, and her serving as a referee. --LauraHale (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: After I burned the last hour poring over the cites in the Jana Kivell and Gizem Öztaşdelen  AfDs, only to see that you tossed in a blizzard of namedrops and mentions in tables, photo captions and roster lists without a single cite that could qualify under the GNG, I would really appreciate you linking to the cites you claim meet the requirements of the GNG in this case.   Ravenswing   18:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment While the GNG usually supercedes all other notablity requirments, a prejudice for keeping is not bad. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  19:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am also having trouble finding English language sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The level of competition doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NHOCKEY. The clincher for me is that she has no article on the Turkish Wikipedia, even with all the Turkish language sources used for this article. I know the Turkish Wikipedia has been blocked since April, but if her career had been notable up to that point, wouldn't there be something about her there? This is the team info page from the Turkish Wiki article for Ice hockey at the 2011 Winter Universiade  [] I notice none of the other players seem to have articles either.  Can a Turkish player who is not considered notable enough for a Turkish article be notable enough for an English one? TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 19:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lots of references but very little that is not WP:PRIMARY and nothing whatsoever that satisfies GNG, only stat sites and brief mentions in match reports. Not seeing a single in depth article on the player. Fenix down (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete She clearly fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and I don't see the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:21, 22 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.