Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akim Aliu

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. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akim Aliu

I'm nominating this article per an agreement to resurrect it from a hasty speedy deletion. I fully admit he is close to the threshold at this point of his career, but I think he's on the keep side. My main agreement towards keep would be that he recently played professionally for the Rockford Icehogs and that alone satisfies WP:BIO. He is also known for being on the receiving end of one of Steve Downie's "episodes". ccwaters (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice. He's not a first round draft pick or a top prospect and hasn't played enough games in the AHL, so he doesn't meet the inclusion criteria yet.-Wafulz (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Article surpasses requests made in WP:BIO. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? It explicitly doesn't meet the requirements for athletes.-Wafulz (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BIO says: Sportspeople
    - - Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
      - Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports and who meet the general criteria of multiple secondary sources published about them.[9]

IMO he meets the bolded text, unless I'm misreading something, which I might be. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 19:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - It's actually the unbolded part he meets. He has played professionally, he has not competed in the highest level of amateur hockey which would be the Olympics or World Championships. -Djsasso (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ooops, I misunderstood where he was competing, but still, he meets it so it would be a violation of policy to delete this article saying he doesn't meet it when he actually does. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 02:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable yet. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I believe people with this little pro experience should be deleted. He does actually meet WP:ATHLETE by having played professionally. And since WP:BIO is the rule for now he meets the threshold. He does however fail to meet the hockey projects guidelines for notability for whatever that is worth. -Djsasso (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Just curious, but when did WP:ATHLETE bump up from professional to "high-level" professional league? ccwaters (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not sure, I hadn't noticed that change until now, looks like someone changed it about a month ago without any discussion, I have since reverted it back to its original statement. -Djsasso (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Hasn't played in the NHL, hasn't won any notable awards in the AHL, and isn't otherwise notable. If he gets caled up to the NHL, though, bring his article back. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This player has yet to establish notability based on the project's notability standards. Had this player been the first player from Nigeria to make it to the ice then that in itself would have made him notable, but he is the second. If he ever makes it to the NHL, or makes it 5 or more seasons AND 100 games in the AHL or similar league if that is the highest level he makes it to then bring back the article. From a project's standpoint, making exceptions to the notability criteria is just opening Pandora's box for other players who are not yet notable. Either we have standards or we don't. -Pparazorback (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only issue is that we do have standards and he meets them for having played professionally. WP:ATHLETE, our ice hockey project guidelines are only meant to try and stop people from creating them in the first place. However once they are created WP:BIO takes over and says he is notable for having played professionally. -Djsasso (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not understand the difference. What you are basically saying is this: If this article did not yet exist, it should NOT be created because he has played less than 100 games and less than 5 seasons in a league such as the AHL, as such it fails the project's notability standards. But, since someone created the article already, we should allow the article to remain because WP:BIO says he is professional and is notable. If this is the case, then our notability standards MUST be changed to reflect that if ANY player plays in at least 1 game in a fully professional league, that they are notable. We can't have it both ways. -Pparazorback (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The hockey project for the most part doesn't agree with WP:BIO and we created our own set of guidlines to try and get members of the project to follow them when creating articles. (if you look at the hockey projects guidelines, it specifically says for the scope of the hockey project). WP:BIO however is policy and trumps anything we as a project decide on, and no one is obligated to follow our guidelines. We have tried to change WP:BIO a number of times and it always gets shot down pretty heavily mostly because there are so many nuances in the various sports that the section for athletes would become rediculously complicated. There have been numerous proposals in the past to change it but it never seems to succeed. As it stands right now anyone who has played a single game is notible enough for wikipedia. -Djsasso (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The AHL is a professional hockey league, therefore it meets WP:BIO. Patken4 (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not a top-level pro league. The NHL is, and he hasn't been there yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where is it stated in WP:BIO that it must be a top level pro league? All it says is that it must be "fully professional", which while a vague phrase, does mean that AHL is meets that criteria. WP:BIO will trump whatever our hockey project guidelines are. Patken4 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going strictly by WP:ATHLETE standards, he is notable. The AHL ia a fully-professional league as relates to policy.Jim Miller (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject meets my interpretation of WP:ATHLETE standards. RFerreira (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He reaches the standards of WP:ATHLETE, so why is there even an argument? Rubythrees (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I was doing to say delete, but I saw he has played in the AHL. The guidelines set forth at WikiProject Ice Hockey, saying the league must be top-level, is not a Wikipedia guideline. The Wikipedia guideline, WP:ATHLETE, only requires that the league be professional. In fact, I think that Project guideline is harmful, since some editors may consider it the official guideline, and will be discouraged to create articles on players who actually do meet the criteria. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above comments. --JForget 22:49, 10 June 2008 (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.