Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Khokhlachev


 * 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. v/r - TP 23:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Khokhlachev

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Topic has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to have enough coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, e.g.,, , , , , . Rlendog (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All are cases of WP:BLP1E. Only routine articles about being drafted. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All the articles I found were about him being drafted, but they are not routine because (1) getting drafted is not routine as not all eligible players get drafted and (2) not all draftees get this level of coverage, i.e., multiple full length stories about them. These multiple independent reliable sources thought that his getting drafted was worthy of a feature story.  And this is not WP:BLP1E, unless we are to presume that he received zero coverage up until now for his hockey playing or his prospect status.  Although normal game coverage is considered routine, such coverage negates BLP1E, since it still represent coverage beyond the event of being drafted. Rlendog (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting drafted isn't routine, but the coverage of the picks is. Almost everyone picked right down to the last picks in the draft will have an article like these in their home towns or in towns they played major junior, or in the cities they were drafted in. Usually all three. Routine coverage also doesn't negate BLP1E. Because routine coverage isn't notable coverage. Only being notably covered more than once negates BLP1E. This is the reasoning for requiring the first round in the WP:HOCKEY. Because beyond those players almost everything is routine draft coverage when it comes to these sorts of articles. There are of course exceptions. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree on both counts. WP:BLP1E states " If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."  And reliable sources do cover these players in the context of multiple events - the games they play, the stats sites.  We do not regard these as counting towards the multiple reliable sources needed to demonstrate notability, because even players who we do not regard as notable receive such coverage, so those sources are meaningless in that regard.  But BLP1E and notability are not identical. These players are not low profile outside of the event of getting drafted, due to their playing games that get covered in newspapers on an ongoing basis, if nothing else.  As for all players who get drafted getting such a story, they don't all get one.  Most get a blurb about Team X drafted Player Y from Team Z, who is this tall and weighs that much, maybe with some stats.  But they do not all get full length stories about them, and certainly not more than 1 or 2, if that.  So when multiple reliable sources choose to publish full length articles about the player, whether because they were drafted or some other reason, they meet our reliability thresholds. Rlendog (talk)
 * I would also state the requirement regarding the first round differently. Being drafted in the first round doesn't make the player inherently notable.  But we do know that players drafted in the first round do get significant coverage - a story in the paper(s) covering the team drafting him, a story in The Hockey News, maybe a story in their hometown paper.  Also, the probably received coverage leading up to the draft based on their obviously high potential.  And the 30th pick in the draft is no more likely than the 31st pick in the draft to have any extensive additional coverage unrelated to their draft position.  Not all 2nd and later round draftees get such coverage, and so we cannot presume notability for them.  Rather, it has to be demonstrated.  But for those that can be demonstrated get this kind of coverage, they meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 22:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets GNG. Canada Hky (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -  Being selected to the World U-17 Hockey Challenge Tournament All-Star Team is a preeminent honour which meets NHOCKEY criteria #4, but that discussion is moot as this player passes GNG as demonstrated by the significant and non-routine coverage he has received in reliable sources as found by Rlendog. Dolovis (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep Drafts and coverage are based on performance during multiple seasons and can hardly be considered "one-time" events. Anyone with that many mentions has already shown a significant amount of skill. Th e S te ve  07:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets notability requirements as shown from links provided above.--EdwardZhao (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.