Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanay Günay


 * 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. Consensus is that the subject doesn't meet the subject-specific or general notability guidelines.  Hut 8.5  20:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Tanay Günay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG.   Ravenswing   18:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: NHOCKEY is not relevant.  Subject passes WP:GNG based on the strength of the sources from Turkish media, including mentions in several national publications.  That these sources are in Turkish, not English, is irrelvant as the national prominence of them is relevant and there are several of them.   The article could be improved with someone more familiar with the language adding more information based on these sources. --LauraHale (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: After I burned a full hour poring over the cites you added in the Jana Kivell  and Gizem Öztaşdelen  AfDs, only to see that they were nothing beyond a blizzard of trivial 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.  What you added here is more of the same -- name listed on rosters, routine sports coverage explicitly debarred as supporting notability under WP:ROUTINE, and the like -- and you are far too experienced an editor to be this unaware of the GNG's provisions, so what gives?   Ravenswing   16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: I am not seeing GNG-worthy sources here, specifically: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Source 1 is interesting as it is about goalkeepers in general and talks to both the subject and the other goalkeeper, but the entire thing reads like WP:ROUTINE coverage (of the "look at this odd sport and all the gear they wear" variety). #2 is broken or dead for me. #3 she is listed in a photo caption. #4 is a single sentence that says she won best goalkeeper. #5 is broken or dead, but upon finding what seems to be a reprint, it does not even mention her, just about the team winning the championship. #6 is routine game coverage of said championship, she is listed at the end of the article as a member of the team. #7 is more routine game coverage of a lower division IIHF game. #8 she is listed as a member of a team. #9 she is not mentioned at all, coverage of the national team in general. #10 is a stats sheet. #11 is a roster list. #12 she is mentioned in a list as a best goalkeeper winner. #13 is also a single sentence stating she won best goalkeeper. Other than #1 (which seems more like odd news/routine coverage of a local team than as significant coverage of the person), all are extremely brief mentions, lists or stats. None of those types of sources are enough to meet GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep this player plays for the national team and in the Turkish Ice Hockey Women's League. Per NHOCKEY #2, a player is presumed notable if they "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of access to a top professional league, the highest level of competition extant;". It's not clear why there are no women's leagues at all listed in WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. That should be updated. Hmlarson (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: This has been explained to you more than once, and I can't help it if you're not listening. Firstly, NHOCKEY does not, and never has, accorded presumptive notability to playing for a national team; Criterion #6 states "Played on a senior national team for the World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year."  The Turkish women's team has never played for the World Championship. Secondly -- and this has been explained to you as well -- Criterion #2 refers to two specific periods in hockey history: the 19th century pre-professional Canadian leagues, and the Cold War era where the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia required their players to play in domestic amateur-only leagues. Finally -- and this likewise has been explained to you -- the reason that women's leagues aren't listed in NHOCKEY/LA is that nowhere in the world does women's hockey receive enough coverage to be able to declare every player who's ever played in such a league presumptively notable, and individual players must rise and fall with the GNG.  Would you like to propound a valid ground upon which to keep?   Ravenswing   05:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is news to me, but thanks for providing some background. My questions re: the guideline are valid and will be repeated where needed. Regarding your statement about women's leagues coverage, it appears to be outdated based on a preliminary US-based Google news search for the top American women's league the National Women's Hockey League (NWHL): https://www.google.com/search?q=national+women%27s+hockey+league&newwindow=1&tbm=nws&ei=D3uWWbfdA4eN0wKguYzQDQ&start=10&sa=N&biw=913&bih=529&dpr=2 How do we go about updating the essay? Hmlarson (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't. There is an enormous difference between a league being notable (which the NWHL unquestioningly is) and for a sports league to receive so much coverage that every single player can be considered to meet the GNG.  That is an enormously high bar to reach, and there are hockey leagues that have existed for the better part of a century that don't meet that standard.  The plain fact of the matter is that the only women's sports league in the world to gain that level of coverage is the WNBA.   Ravenswing   05:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -fails GNG. There seems to be a lot of confusion here about number of references equalling significant coverage. It has been quite clearly demonstrated above that all sources noted contain trivial mentions or are simply rosters / stats. Fenix down (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the sources on the page, or in a google search pass WP:GNG. NHOCKEY is clearly not met, even if it related directly to women, the subject does not play in the top leagues of the world.18abruce (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources provided don't demonstrate notability. I'm starting to feel like a broken record, and certainly don't have anything against women's hockey (I actually have attended college woman's hockey games) or Turkey (I loved visiting the country) but it's hard to make an argument that these players are notable when they are not even mentioned on the Turkish Wikipedia.  Would we go to the Turkish Wikipedia and add an American sports figure that wasn't on the English Wikipedia? Since there has been a recent uptick in these articles and the same names voting for and against keeping, I think we need some policy, which I'll call WP:NOTXENO, that states if a foreign subject's notability is questioned due to poor English sourcing, as long as the subject's period of notability predates a ban (like the one facing the Turkish Wikipedia), and there's  otherwise no evidence of state censorship preventing such an article, then before we add anything here there should first be an article on the foreign Wikipedia. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  19:27, 21 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.