Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryker Evans

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. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryker Evans[edit]

[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)

Ineligible for a PROD deletion as that was done already, but as I noted when I set that up: Fails WP:NHOCKEY; only Second All-Star Team in WHL, no professional experience. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ice hockey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Meets no notability standards, now or ever. No evidence that the player meets the GNG; the only sources are routine sports coverage. Ravenswing 12:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to pass GNG: Pat's Evans is enjoying the taste of success from The Leader-Post; Evan's NHL stock could soar after strong season from The Leader-Post; Kraken take no chances, grab Evans in round 2 from The Leader-Post; Regina Pats' Ryker Evans excited to get crackin' with Kraken from The Leader-Post; After proving doubters wrong, surprise draft pick Ryker Evans wants to prove the Kraken right from The Seattle Times; ‘You never become complacent’: How being underestimated helped Kraken prospect Ryker Evans shape his game from The Athletic; Kraken sign second-round pick Ryker Evans to entry-level deal from Fox News; and Pats’ Evans ready to get Kraken on pro career from CKOM. Clearly passes the general notability guideline with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just isn't passing the notability test. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: How not? Have you even looked at the above sources? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider, reconsidering it. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Easily passes WP:GNG with the several significant sources found by User:BeanieFan11 Alvaldi (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Rlendog and Ej. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 07:36, 2 August 2022 (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.