Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Knott

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. MBisanz ^talk 11:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Knott[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NHOCKEY, true, but the nomination does not address whether he fails WP:GNG. And he may not. I was able to find a few quick articles on him. [1] [2]. This may not be enough, but given that he was a high drat pick, there may be more relevant coverage from his junior days as well, which I haven't had time to search for yet. Rlendog (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That Tribune article is worthless, but the other one could serve as a the cornerstone of a GNG challenge.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think the Tribune article is worthless. It is an article primarily about Knott in a major newspaper. I also found an article about Knott in a less prestigious (but I think still relaiable) source here.
Fails WP:NHOCKEY. I was unaware that WP:HOCKEY respected WP:GNG. Any high draft pick probably passes WP:GNG if you are willing to do the digging.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all high draft choices pass WP:GNG. We expect that first rounders do, and so they are included as presuming notability under WP:NHOCKEY. A number of high 2nd rounders do, consistent with the fact that they were often considered as possible first round picks and may get additional coverage for being their team's first or 2nd pick. But once you get below the top half of the 2nd round it seems to be pretty infrequent. Of course there are a few players below that who have significant coverage - maybe they were a star in juniors but deemed too slow or small to be worth a #1 or high #2 pick, or maybe there is something else that generates extra coverage, but only a handful of such players if that seem to have such coverage each year. Rlendog (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both NHOCKEY and GNG. The sources shown by Rlendog are articles about a local teams draft pick which is typically considered routine coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Those aren't routine because most draftees (except first rounders) typically do not get full articles even in the local papers. They get more like a sentence or two saying that the team selected so and so in the Xth round, maybe adding what junior or amateur team they played for or some other piece of color. But that said, I still don't know that those articles are sufficient. Rlendog (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:10, 8 May 2016 (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.