Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Fejes

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. Discussion has gone stale, clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 18:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Fejes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Contested WP:PROD. As I noted there, non-notable ice hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Several years in the minor leagues and lower-level European leagues with no individual awards are not enough for the new notability standards. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, Slovakia, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the WP:NSPORT page you link to clearly states: "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". Indeed, the rule that applies, as per WP:BASIC, is as follows: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

Here is a list of a bunch of such sources, all easily Googlable:

I understand and appreciate the need to keep Wikipedia clear of pages about random people that are of interest only to a few readers. However, stretching the Wikipedia rules to an absurd extent to justify deleting a page covering one of the biggest current stars of the Slovak highest professional ice hockey league that has been covered by full page articles in national press seems like borderline vandalism to me. Why not contribute something of value instead? Newklear007 (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Seems to be enough significant coverage. The Kip 02:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources in the article. --NYC Guru (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Has Significance 183.87.238.141 (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Also found these two on him 1 and 2. Seems notable in addition with the other links.KatoKungLee (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 06:22, 21 November 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.