Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vili Saarijärvi


 * 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. A clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Vili Saarijärvi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Another substub hockey article, and I'm almost at the point of writing WP:DOLOVISCREATEDIT into WP:COMMONOUTCOMES. Somewhat brazenly (and neither for the first or the fiftieth time), he set forth that the "honors" qualifying this NN amateur player with no particular distinction for an article was participating in junior amateur championships and prospect games, despite all-but-unanimous and ongoing consensus that such explicitly didn't meet the requirements of NHOCKEY.  Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that the subject meets the GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenswing (talk • contribs) 09:00, 17 April 2016‎
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see how this article, at over 400 words with multiple references can be considered a "substub". It technically could have qualified for WP:DYK if it were new enough.  But the references present do not add up to notability, and the accomplishments do not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * More of a question--does it matter that he won a directorate award for best defensemen in the IIHF world U18 championships? It seems to me to be a rather significant award but I don't know if that is notable enough.  To me it seems different than most other Dolovis selections.18abruce (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a bit of it; we set quite a high bar for teenage and amateur players, and the subject doesn't come remotely close. We don't accord any special notability for getting the MVP in the Memorial Cup -- a tournament with a great deal more media coverage than the U18 championships -- let alone a "directorate award."  Granted, if you can find coverage meeting the GNG that doesn't run afoul of WP:ROUTINE, that's a different matter.   Ravenswing   20:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Looking around, it is very unusual for someone who wins a directorate award to not become notable, but I guess that is the point...he is not there yet.18abruce (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the sort of thing that happens all the time. There are any number of examples (and not only from hockey history) of teenage "can't-miss" phenoms who do, indeed, never reach the big time.  One of the things I did over the last month was go back over old AfDs in which I participated where the result was deletion but subjects still came up as blue links.  One of them was a mass AfD of about a dozen 3rd and 4th rounders from the 2006 draft.  Jonathan Toews was one of those players.  The furthest any of the others went was a desultory three years in the AHL.   Ravenswing   22:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It absolutely does not happen all the time. Out of 42 directorate award winners at the U18's only one other has not achieved "notability" yet, and that is goalie Collin Olsen who is still in college.  So 95% of all winners of draft age, and 100% of all who have finished junior/college.  I like those odds, but I agree that he does not fulfill the notability standards.18abruce (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, I'm not convinced this can be better improved. SwisterTwister   talk  22:34, 25 April 2016 (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.