Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Lafreniere

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. ✗plicit 09:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lafreniere[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)

Nomination on behalf of the subject, as they feel they are not a notable individual per the usual metrics. Primefac (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on a personal note, I do find that there is almost nothing online about this individual, though obviously much of their career is pre-internet. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Played 146 games in the National Hockey League and easily meets WP:NHOCKEY #1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:DGFA permits the subject's opinion to be taken into consideration (presuming this is an OTRS case) in a deletion discussion only where notability is ambiguous. This is not the case here. The subject was a second round pick in the NHL entry draft. Playing one NHL game would meet Criterion #1 of NHOCKEY; he played 146. Playing 200 games or more in a secondary league would meet Criterion #2; he played over 400 between several different such leagues. He was a First Team All-Star in the OHL, and was the leading playoff scorer in 1986, which satisfies Criterion #3 of NHOCKEY. His professional career spanned three decades and several countries. News articles turn up in England and Italy at a casual news archive glance, places in which the subject played extensively. And while the article is a stub, I can't see any content that's objectionable. Ravenswing 11:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the recent past I have started a number of BLPREQUESTDELETE AFDs for individuals who feel they are not notable, with about 50% being deleted (which, I suppose, is a reasonable output). While I do recognize the SNG indicates this is a notable individual, with the lack of reliable (non-stat) sources, concerns about accuracy of information, potential harassment, and a few other issues which I cannot go into, I felt this was a case where it was worth seeing how the community felt about the matter. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any more reason to worry about the accuracy of information than with any other BLP? And as far as "potential harassment" goes, were there whackdoodles seeking information on the Internet for nefarious purposes -- for a long-retired hockey player whose last substantive North American action was decades ago -- there is nothing in the article that can't be found in 90 seconds on Google. Ravenswing 21:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the accuracy of the information necessarily, but there are further issues that I am not really able to discuss. You're correct on most of your points, though. Primefac (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I hope you recognize that those of us not privy to the OTRS process can only judge on the issue we can see and know: whether the subject satisfies the standard notability criteria. He does. The only other conceivable issue I can see is that over the last few weeks there's been a flurry of vandalism from anon IPs, only one of which was blocked. One would think it was safe to mention that (if it was nasty enough in some cases to warrant revdel, there's no "potential" about it), since it's apparent to any editor. What I didn't find was any attempt to semi-protect the article, which I submit should've been tried before AfD ... and indeed should be done now. Ravenswing 22:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do recognize that, and I certainly can see how it's a bit odd to be nominating a page seemingly for only a little bit of vandalism, but I will say that this AFD is a bit of a compromise between two extremes. As far as protection goes, I've got the page watchlisted and with the only major vandal IP blocked, I figured I'd take a wait-and-see approach for protection. Primefac (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NHOCKEY. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a few minutes to look around and found a pretty substantial article about him and his career in Pro Hockey News, not only does he meet WP:NHOCKEY but also easily WP:Basic. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable, and I cannot see that the material can be considered hurtful. Geschichte (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2021 (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.