Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Swayman

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. As all arguments have a basis in policy, this comes down to whether or not the sources provided are substantive, non-routine coverage, and so contribute towards meeting GNG. As this is essentially a matter of judgement with no objective criterion, I cannot ignore the substantial numerical majority who do not find it to be substantive. Vanamonde (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Swayman[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)

Was deprodded without improvement with the rationale, "I removed the deletion notice because it makes no sense. Jeremy swayman is a goaltender prospect for the NHL's Bston Bruins who was picked in the 4th round 111th overall in the 2017 NHL entry draft."

Unfortunately, while a good prospect, he simply doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Teenage amateur player who fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:TOOSOON, and shows no evidence of meeting the GNG. Created by an editor who's created several such articles on Boston Bruins' prospects, most of which are also at AfD. Ravenswing 23:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG per coverage by NBC sports, Bangor Daily News, Boston Globe, Herald News, and the Anchorage Daily News. Nom clearly did not follow WP:BEFORE on this one.--TM 12:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine draft coverage and analysis of the local college team do not make a GNG pass. For example the Anchorage Daily News article is the sort of thing that every single player on an amateur roster would expect to have.18abruce (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you'd like more in-depth sources: NHL.com, Hockey Journal, CBS, The Hockey Writers. These are not trivial and he is the subject of all of them. Clearly, he passes WP:GNG.--TM 15:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NHL.com article is routine draft coverage, the CBS article is local coverage (as it indicates itself), the hockey writers article is part of a series that covers the draft and prospects but maybe there is something there, the New England hockey journal article is by definition local and routine (that's what that part of its publication is for). I am still not seeing anything that is not common to any prospect, that is pretty close to the definition of trivial (commonplace), but I won't lose any sleep if the community disagrees.18abruce (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) non-national coverage does not mean the source is invalid per WP:GNG. 2) Specialized publications (like Hockey websites) are valid for determining notability. 3) Swayman plays on the US junior national team, has been drafted by a NHL team, and is the starting goaltender on a major collegiate ice hockey team. Looking at this holistically, it is clear that he passes WP:GNG.--TM 13:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Specialized publications are only valid for determining notability if they meet the test for reliable sources. Blogsites rarely do; (b) Neither playing on the junior national team, being drafted by a NHL team (other than in the first round), nor starting on a collegiate hockey team at any level of play fulfills any extant notability criteria; and (c) I don't know what looking at this "holistically" means, but the GNG's clear, and the subject does not meet it. Ravenswing 20:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The CBS article and Herald News article are substantial articles about the subject and are not "routine draft coverage." The NBC article is a substantive article about the subject that is related to him being drafted, but that in itself does not make it "routine" - not every hockey player gets drafted and many draft picks get a one or two sentence blurb saying that "X from junior team Y was selected by NHL team Z in round W." I wouldn't hang notability on the mere presence of several articles about someone being drafted in the later rounds, but the fact that a reliable source chose to write an article about someone because he was drafted counts for at least one source towards notability. The NHL article is also about him being drafted so I will subsume that to the NBC article. But that still leaves 3 substantial sources. The other sources are less impressive, but some rise a bit beyond trivial, so we have at least 3+ sources. Which is enough to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The draft articles including the NBC one are all routine being drafted articles. Every single player who has ever been drafted has been covered in a routine drafted article and/or prospect reports. Draft articles are no different than game summaries in that respect. The others as mentioned are local which generally ends up being routine coverage of the local star. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing and Djsasso. He hasn't done enough yet to warrant an article. Deadman137 (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this time he doesn't meet any notability criteria. At best, the article is WP:TOOSOON. Local coverage of him and updates in the Boston paper about how the Bruin's draft pick is doing should be considered run of the mill sports reporting and is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2018 (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.