Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Liambas

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Liambas

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

Non-notable lower league hockey player, fails criteria of WP:NHOCKEY as well as the GNG. Sources which are not routine coverage, are ONE EVENT coverage of his suspension. Favoid (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Favoid (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of significant reliable sources. One event is not an issue because WP:BLP1E requires that "if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." But reliable sources do cover this player in the context of other events, even if that coverage is less substantial. And this player is not a "low-profile individual," he is a professional hockey player who gets coverage and is viewed and recognized by many fans of his team. In any case, the article about the 2nd suspension is not routine and covers a 2nd event. Rlendog (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wouldn't call this routine coverage, nor one-event. Sources provided prove the subject meets the GNG, and the article is much better formed than some of those that get kept automatically because the player meets NHOCKEY. Canada Hky (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the reasons enumerated on the article's talk page as well as those posted here. Above and beyond the notability demonstrated by the multiple sources referenced in the article, the incident involving Liambas and Fanelli has been consistently referenced in the cases of other players making what some consider to be excessively physical plays, such as Tomas Kuhnhackl on Ryan Murphy (here), Patrice Cormier on Mikael Tam and Zack Kassian on Matt Kennedy (here, here, here, here, here, here and here), Brendan Shinnimin on Josh Nicholls (here) and Alexander Ovechkin on multiple players (here). Physical plays (especially hits to the head) are a major issue in ice hockey at the moment and Liambas is extremely relevant in that context. I think that qualifies him for notability better than meeting the NHOCKEY wicket that only suggests that he might be notable. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 22:42, 12 November 2011 (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.