Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Heindl Sr.

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep‎. Consensus among the participants is that the article passes WP:GNG, thanks to the expansion by User:Cbl62. (non-admin closure) BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Heindl Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NHOCKEY, and I would argue WP:GNG. He did not play in the top level of hockey, and while he had awards, they are for non-notable, minor leagues. I would also argue that induction into the Manitoba Hockey Hall of Fame is also not significant notability, especially with the recent tightening of notability criteria. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep with the new sources found, presented above. Just enough for GNG. Played a big part in the Quebec league almost folding/withdrawing as above. Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite an intriguing character, competing professionally in two different sports. He played professional football at the halfback position for Vancouver in 1941, led two different junior hockey clubs to Memorial Cup championships, served in the Royal Canadian Navy during WWII, and played five years of professional hockey with the Saskatoon Quakers after the war. There are > 2,000 hits from Canadian newspapers reporting on him during the 1940s and 1950s. I've begun a rewrite and have added some sourcing which should be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good save and rewrite, clearly passes GNG now. Jenks24 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2023 (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.