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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. The sources on the page are either not independent or are routine coverage. Should actually be deleted as G4 as it contains pretty much identical information with nothing new to indicate notability, however, the tag was removed by someone. DJSasso (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnpacklambert: Hi, Wikipedia does not have any inclusion criteria specifically for hockey players. NSPORTS is intended to indicate whether or not sources can be found for an athlete -- it does not serve its main purpose if sources are already found, as is the case with this article as they are all listed at the bottom. --Habst (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Habst: Actually, WP:NHOCKEY is for all ice hockey players including women, although the only consistency for coverage in NHOCKEY that women are likely to meet is #6, playing in the top level of the IIHF World Championship (or WP:NOLYMPICS). However, this does not mean that all women who do not meet NHOCKEY are not notable as any NSPORTS or NPEOPLE can still meet GNG. And as GNG is the nomination reason, lets keep the discussion there. Yosemiter (talk)
• Keep. I removed the tag because I read the relevant Wikipedia policies and thought that it did not qualify for speedy deletion via that criteria. Before I removed the tag, I wrote why I thought it didn't qualify for deletion at Talk:Carly_Hill#Contested deletion. The athlete is a two-time gold medalist at a global senior championship. There are at least twelve references from ten different independent secondary sources demonstrating non-routine coverage of the subject. That demonstrates substantial depth of coverage that far surpasses the WP:BASIC guidelines in my opinion, which overrules NSPORTS. The purpose of the NSPORTS guidelines is to supplement GNG and not to replace it (in fact the purpose is not to be authoritative in any sense as it is only an indicator of whether sources can be found), and I think that the athlete meets GNG. Also, I don't think it's very fair to say the tag was removed by "someone" without even mentioning my rationale for removing the tag (which is, again, on the talk page) when you could have pinged me by my username. Habst (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Habst: There are several problematic presumptions made in your statement, so I will do my best to address each one.

    First, it did qualify for speedy as it was a re-creation of a previously deleted article that did not have any additional content added. Basically just a translation of the person's French Wikipedia article, which is what was deleted before. And just because there is an article in a another language's Wikipedia, it does not mean the subject is notable on the English Wikipedia. The different language Wikipedias are considered separate projects with different notability standards, while also generally having less organizational oversight. However, you are within your rights to contest.

    Second, WP:BASIC is the shortened version of WP:GNG (hence why that section has a See also: Wikipedia:General notability guideline at the top). GNG does indeed overrule NSPORTS. The problem lies in your presumption of notability based on achievements that have not been shown to have any inherent notability. Winning any gold medals has no such presumption, especially as it is a team award and not an individual achievement. Also, it was not a "global senior championship" (which would be the top level of the IIHF World Women's Championships), it was just the Canadian Women's Hockey League, prior to the league paying its players (and also prior to having the China-based teams, so even your "global" is incorrect). Her national championships in the CIS are even lower in terms of media coverage.

    Now the GNG sources and your statement: "at least twelve references from ten different independent secondary sources". Please note to meet GNG at least a couple of sources must meet all of the following: significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

1 and 2 are her WP:PRIMARY stats pages (with 2 not intellectually independent).

3 is from a non-independent, non-reliable fan blog. (The site self describes The best and most comprehensive #Habs blog around.")

4, 5 7 is her school newspaper and is not considered independent per WP:NCOLLATH.

6 The first independent secondary news source, however, she is not even mentioned and thus means nothing for her meeting GNG. It is a source to show the team won.

8 Primary source for the CIS (now U Sports), so not secondary.

9 Another independent secondary source. Also she is not even mentioned a single time, again an unusable source for Hill meeting GNG.

10 Cannot tell the independence or reliability of this source. However, it is simply a list and therefore fails the significant depth of coverage qualification for GNG.

11 Primary source for the CIS. Also she is never even mentioned.

So based on the sources used in the article, and a G-News search that only gets 93 hits for the name in hockey, all mentions or blogs, this appears to far and away a person who fails to meet GNG with NO significant depth of coverage. The only exception may be if someone can provide some better French language articles that I missed in my search. Yosemiter (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: NN hockey player, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE as contributing towards notability. For my part, I am at a serious loss to figure out how any editor can look at "she won gold medals at two of the World University Games" and claim that such represented a "global senior championship" (let alone one recognized by NHOCKEY), or to have genuinely looked at those sources and claim that they provide significant, reliable, independent coverage to the subject. Ravenswing 19:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. It might be worth considering to salt the article given how quickly it was recreated with the exact same content that got it deleted in the first place. Deadman137 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SPORTSPERSON, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The subject fails NHOCKEY, which is the pertinent sports SNG to which SPORTSPERSON directs, the subject meets none of the three elements of ANYBIO, and Yosemiter's already covered the GNG argument. I'd ask you what GNG-qualifying sources you believe to exist for the subject, except that I've asked you the same question in about two dozen AfDs to date, and not once have you responded. Ravenswing 23:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In case anyone is willing to look up Canada Games, you'll see WP:ANYBIO clearly met, in addition to WP:SPORTSPERSON and WP:GNG. WP:NHOCKEY excludes most women hockey players - so I tend to ignore it, just like some editors on here. Hmlarson (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Canada Games is the top level amateur youth competition in Canada, but I fail to see how a participation on any amateur team there meets ANYBIO's: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field and the silver medal there is definitely not an award that meets: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor (I have a hard time even finding a list of winners, mush less significant depth of coverage on them).

  Also ANYBIO still falls under the provisions of GNG (as stated in the section lead for ANYBIO: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included), so please focus your arguments of the reason it is nominated (which is GNG first and foremost). Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• NHOCKEY ignores most women hockey players because the world does not find women's hockey noteworthy enough to provide it reliable coverage. In like fashion, no modern-day women's baseball leagues are presumptively notable, no women's football leagues are presumptively notable, no women's rugby leagues are presumptively notable ... In any event, no, you don't simply get to ignore pertinent notability criteria that you don't like. This is a consensus-based encyclopedia, and you don't have veto power over its provisions.

  (And that being said, if you really do believe that participation in a national amateur competition meets ANYBIO, then frankly, I question your competence to gauge hockey-related articles at all. Ravenswing 06:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We could include women in NHOCKEY, but it would be some form in the last section that could consist of:

  For coaches or managers of ice hockey teams, substitute "coached" or "managed" for "played" in the player guidelines.

  For women hockey players and personnel that do not meet the above criteria, coverage in women's college and professional teams of individuals has been found to be inconsistent and therefore the player must meet GNG independently.

  For participants in defunct leagues who satisfy any of these achievement standards, please see the ice hockey league assessment maintained by the Ice Hockey WikiProject. For leagues still in existence, only those listed above satisfy the specified criteria.

  But something tells me you would still not be happy about. Not to mention if I brought that proposal up at WT:NSPORTS, I would get shot down as it is unusual to have an anti-criterion and, as Ravenswing correctly points out, is not used for all the other NSPORTS guidelines that have no mention of women's leagues.Yosemiter (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She doesn't meet the notability criteria for hockey players and I don't believe the coverage is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet NHOCKEY, the sources in the article are either blogs or brief mentions, and I did not find anything on my own that would indicate she meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.