Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sera Doğramacı

Add links
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 delete. On first look, this might seem like a case of "no consensus", however, when the argument that she meets NHOCKEY, PROF or GNG was challenged, those in favor of keeping did not offer any more arguments. SoWhy 17:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sera Doğramacı

Sera Doğramacı (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)

Fails WP:HOCKEY. Contested PROD and disruption caused by Smartyllama. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ATHLETE, "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources." Hmlarson (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you indentended that ref to prove notability, but it was written by the subject herself.... -DJSasso (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. As for NHOCKEY #2, that applies to leagues that existed before professional hockey existed in the 1800's etc. And in the communist countries where "professional" leagues did not exist as their "amateur" leagues were essentially their professional leagues. Professional leagues exist in the world now and she isn't prevented from moving to play in them (as citizens of the communist countries were), so she has the ability (if she had the skill) to play in them. This is spelled out in the link NHOCKEY provides to show what leagues meet each criteria. Secondly WP:NHOCKEY points out that you must play on a senior national team at the highest level of competition, she did not play on a national team that competed in the top level of the world championships or at the Olympics. Thirdly, while failing them does not mean they must be deleted, failing WP:GNG which this subject does, does mean they should be deleted. I can find no sources that provide notability. -DJSasso (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why is this AfD focussed on hockey? The subject's academic papers, although inappropriately referenced in the article, seem to have references which can be easily found and as far as I can tell have been cited by others a decent number of times. The subject is/was also on the editorial board of a journal. I suggest there is enough for a case for a low level of compliance with WP:ACADEMIC. That combined with the subject's second string but not trivial hockey activity I believe is sufficient WP:NEXIST to satisfy WP:GNG. A subject does not have to pass any specific SNG if over all they pass GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While the article writing could use big improvements around some of the sourcing issues, subject appears to pass WP:GNG based on Epoch Times, Iceland Review, Sondakika, Haberinola, Visir, Doğan Haber Ajansı, Inner West Times and El Diario Montanes. Coverage comes from Iceland, Turkey, Brazil and Australia. The challenge her is most of the best sources about her to prove her notability are not in English, which can make notability less apparent. Notability would probably be more clear if someone more familiar with the Turkish language could find additional sources to clarify these. --LauraHale (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 20:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced (ignoring the unnecessary seven references to confirm she played for one Australian club), however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. For example, keep votes above cite Icelandic sources as an indication of GNG. Aside from the fact that these sources are articles on here team, not her, the first one doesn't even mention her, whilst the second is a very brief match report where she is mentioned in one sentence. Furthermore, I'm seeing significant elements of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. As an aside, I would also note that here scientific career does not add weight to notability as she fails WP:NACADEMICS. Fenix down (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. AaronWikia (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: @AaronWikia: She does not meet any criteria of NHOCKEY. What specific sources are you claiming meet GNG? Yosemiter (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fenix down. Deadman137 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's clear she doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY and I don't see that WP:NPROF is met. That leaves WP:GNG. At first glance it appears that there are plenty of sources, but after clicking on each one I don't see any that I believe qualify as significant and independent. There are lots of stat sheets and routine sports reporting, but nothing that shows WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Despite the erroneous assertions of others, there is no element of NHOCKEY the subject meets, none at all. The subject also fails WP:PROF, and I'm afraid this is just another of several recent AfDs on female Turkish hockey players where LauraHale just grabbed casual namedrops and roster listings off of Google (in one, she actually cited as a source of notability a mid-term grade online posting from a university course the subject had taken!!!), so at this point, I'm taking nothing on faith here: I want any keep proponent to identify the specific cites they claim satisfy the GNG. So far that's a challenge the keep proponents on these articles appear unwilling to address. Ravenswing 15:02, 25 August 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sera_Doğramacı&oldid=1068841939"