Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Brickler

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Note that while User:Sand79975 has not included a "keep" !vote in bold, their commentary is obviously aligned with notions for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Brickler[edit]

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

Currently appears to fails WP:GNG per mostly WP:ROUTINE sources. Best source appears to be this interview from 2015 about him trying to make the 2018 South Korean Olympic team. That gives us one source assuming the paper is independent and reliable. The rest are all stats pages and game coverage or brief mentions. He also currently fails all WP:NHOCKEY criteria by not playing in a high enough league or winning any awards. As he has not made an IIHF top level or an Olympics appearance, it is WP:TOOSOON to assume notability. Yosemiter (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: After revising the above claims, editing was completed and corrections were made. In detail, WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE are now credible by adding WP:IRS updated sources such as this interview from 2017 and others. The original source from 2015 is reliable and comes from South Korea's largest news agency. Stat pages have also been updated and added. He now fulfills the high enough league criteria by satisfying Criterion #4 the Elite Ice Hockey League. Source 1 explains his decision to move out of his current league and source 2 gives even more detail and notability of playing in a higher league. The debate to delete the entire article, rather than fixing minor errors and editing necessary parts, shows that this user clearly fails in his attempt to try to remove this article. Sand79975 (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sand79975: I am not "attempt(ing) to try" to delete an entire article just because of errors (I will often fix those). I am merely questioning the subject's notability. It is not something to take offense to, it is standard procedure. I looked over your added articles and most still seem pretty WP:ROUTINE. You added a NYTimes article (the 2017 interview you mentioned) where he gets two paragraphs of coverage (borderline significant?), two tryout rosters (fully routine), an NAHL article where he is not mentioned (there to verify the team's final placement), and one from a Rochester newsite (semi-local). I cannot open the Sun Journal article as it is behind a paywall, but it appears to be some routine coverage of the Div III frozen four game where he got a hat trick. If the subject is deemed to meet WP:GNG per the sources found, then I have absolutely no problem with that. Just as of right now, I feel it is a bit WP:TOOSOON.Other reviewers will come and check the page to hopefully give some decision. Until then, keep improving it (and perhaps read WP:BAREURL to prevent linkrot).

Also please read NHOCKEY again, he has not won any awards in the EIHL, nor even played in the EIHL, to have been able to meet NHOCKEY #4. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: The notability of this article hasn't ever been questioned once, until now. It's been active for over a year, with different users adding and updating it. Your feedback is solely your opinions on how you view the material and nothing else. You are aware that you can edit the article as well and are free to do so. Thank you, Sand79975 (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sand79975: How long it has existed has no meaning towards notability, in fact, the appearance that you are the only editor to actually contribute content means it has probably just existed without anyone really noticing it (and could be used to argue against its notability). The other editors that put minor edits into this article may not actually be reading for notability purposes, just content, errors, and categorization. There have been pages deleted that have existed for nearly a decade before being found by a notability editor. (read User talk:Dolovis for a long list of hockey players that have been deleted, most of which were created between 2011 and 2015 and are still being found and filtered out). Again, this is not a personal slight, just a procedural discussion on the notability of the subject. (Which can be sometimes subjective on the interpretation of various guidelines and sources. So if you want to call it an "opinion", then it would be somewhat true according to my interpretations.) Yosemiter (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: Nonetheless, I appreciate all your opinions and feedback. By adding updated WP:IRS sources, other reviewers will come and check the page to hopefully give their decision on this. Thank you, Sand79975 (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep You can make the argument that it passes WP:GNG with sources such as this interview from 2017 and original source from 2015. Biographical details can be sourced. Filling in a lot of other content from routine coverage is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I still feel the NY Times "interview" is not very significant coverage (the subject of that article is about the Korean team and how it is recruiting players for the Olympics, of which Brickler was briefly interviewed for about two comments, but Brickler himself was not the subject). I will contribute this semi-local article which appears to be more significant in coverage of the person. So by my count, there is one reliable source and significant coverage article, one reliable but very borderline in significance (IMO) in the NY Times article, a couple of semi-local but significant coverage articles making it borderline routine, and several stats pages (which are good to have but to not contribute to notability. Take this info as you will. I am trying to determine which side of notability this subject lies based on analysis and consensus. Yosemiter (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::@Yosemiter: Brickler's photograph and name in the byline on the very first page of the New York Times is significant as it satisfies WP:GNG sources and notability. In addition, two paragraphs of quotations from him make it credible. The fact that he was mentioned and quoted, two different times, by two different authors of the New York Times is doubly significant, as shown in source number two. In addition, this USA Today article that was added represents the third significant source. Your addition of the local article that you contributed represents source number four and the original article by the Yonhap News Agency, represents a reliable fifth source. Sand79975 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second NY Times article is better than the first in significant coverage with a couple more paragraphs (about five), but it is still primarily about the Korean team and not Brickler. (I am not questioning the credibility of the source, and I never did. And by "significant", I mean the depth of the coverage on the player himself, not the subject of the article, which is the team.) As I said, significance is somewhat subjective. User:TonyTheTiger seems to feel that two paragraphs is enough and I do not, and that is why we have these discussions. It is not about being right or wrong, just having quality articles. And FYI, the USA Today article is just a reprint form its Rochester-based affiliated newsite, the Democrat and Chronicle. Yosemiter (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The USA Today article establishes a greater and more reputable source with added "significance." It is clear that I support the findings of User:TonyTheTiger (TTT), therefore believing the article is significant. So I guess you and I can agree to disagree. In fact, TTT and I believe the sources are GR-R-REAT! Sand79975 (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the sourcing is sufficient to meet WP:GNG to establish subjects notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2017 (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.