Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Haczyk

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Haczyk[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the WP:NHOCKEY guideline for ice hockey players. Onthegogo (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator claims that Mr. Haczyk is not notable, but the notability guideline states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The general notability guideline further explains that "significant coverage" means: "that sources address the subject directly in detail". Mr. Haczyk clearly has been addressed directly in detail in several reliable sources: [1][2][3][4]. It's a common misconception that athletes who fail a sport specific guideline such as WP:NHOCKEY cannot be notable, but this is not the case at all. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) asks editors to "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". Qrsdogg (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Qrsdogg. Well sourced article, the subject is clearly notable enough.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My opinion is that those sources are routine coverage. I do invoke the qualifications of WP:NHOCKEY because he is a hockey player. If he doesn't go any further in his hockey career, his career is really not yet notable. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP defines "routine coverage" as "as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage". These articles are clearly not simply routine coverage of hockey games, but in depth profiles of an individual. There is a difference between "sports coverage" and profiles of an individual. There are thousands of college hockey players in the U.S. Very very few of them will have in depth detailed looks at their careers published in multiple reliable sources as Mr. Haczyk has had. I don't see how you can say this is "routine" at all. It does not matter whether he meets WP:NHOCKEY or whether you think his career is notable. If you read Wikipedia:Notability (sports) it clearly states that "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline". It is not a requirement above the GNG! As shown above, he easily meets GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The refs that Qrsdogg has given go much further than routine coverage and are, in fact, significant coverage. I'll basically reiterate what Qrsdogg has said above, in that, if the subject passes the general notability guideline, then they are notable, whether they pass the sport-specific guideline or not. Jenks24 (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources - The refs that Qrsdogg has given might be considered as questionable sources as they are expressing views that are promotional, or which rely heavily on personal opinion. And yes, those kind of articles are routine for college and junior hockey players. Onthegogo (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional? What are these websites selling? If you read the link you cited in context it refers to websites that are by nature devoted to promoting a certain idea, not individual articles that might reflect the author's point of view. In any case, it isn't at all uncommon for sportswriters to include their opinion of an athlete in an article about the subject-that has no bearing on whether the publication is a reliable source or not. Anyway, it does not matter if you think the coverage is routine or if he is a notable athlete, what matters is how Wikipedia defines "routine coverage" and "notability" in the relevant policies. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I raised the issue on WP:RSN to get more feedback on the sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY. College player with no coverage beyond local media sources and online news outlets that specifically cover college hockey. ccwaters (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:NHOCKEY test shows how a hockey player who has received no press coverage could be eligible for Wikipedia, however failing WP:NHOCKEY is not a reason to delete an article (as WP:NHOCKEY clearly states). In this case, while Bryan Haczyk does indeed fail WP:NHOCKEY, he passes WP:GNG by receiving press coverage in four separate publications, and all four articles are actually about him, they don't just mention him as a passing reference. Robman94 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not significant coverage for general notability, either. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:34, 21 March 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.