Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Yogan


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Yogan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Objected to prod. Junior player who has yet to play professionally or otherwise achieve notability or meet WP:NHOCKEY. The objector mentioned he received press for being the first Floridian drafted. But that would just be a case of WP:BLP1E. Can be recreated when/if he meets NHOCKEY or otherwise achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC) DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are sufficient sources in the article now to indicate sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. While some of that coverage is the result of being the first Floridian drafted, we do not deem being drafted WP:BLP1E for 1st round picks.  And in any cases, several of the articles about Yogan in the article precede the event of his being drafted.  And there is coverage for him resulting from his signing a pro contract, winning OHL player of the week, and his scoring 2 goals in his pro debut. While the latter items on their own may not necessarily be sufficient to indicate notability, they do represent further coverage beyond the event of being drafted, further invalidating the BLP1E argument.  And the Hartford Courant article about his joining the Whale is a full length article about him, which would be an indication towards notability even without the draft coverage. Rlendog (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We consider draft coverage to most definitely be a case of BLP1E as well as WP:ROUTINE. First round picks being notable is because we assume they have articles outside their just being drafted. Signing the pro contract and a passing mention of winning a player of the week award or getting a goal in your first game also are all WP:ROUTINE coverage as well since every player would receive that coverage. That isn't even mentioning that most of the references on that page are blogs or press releases. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Transaction reports of being drafted or being signed are WP:ROUTINE. But Yogan received several full length articles about him.  Those are not WP:ROUTINE.  Some of those preceded his getting drafted; the full length Fox News article doesn't even mention the draft other than to note his Central Scouting Rating several months before the draft.  You say that 1st round draft picks are assumed to "have articles outside their just being drafted"; well, 4th round picks like Yogan aren't "assumed" to have them but Yogan himself does.  Some stories about him were coincident with his being drafted - not routine coverage saying "Yogan was drafted in the 4th round" but full length stories about Yogan at the time he was drafted.  At least one was when he signed his pro contract - most players don't get such an article but Yogan did.  Some of the coverage Yogan received upon signing his pro contract was routine, e.g., this or this.  But the full length profile he received around that time here is not routine coverage. Rlendog (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The March 22 2012 Hartford Courant article about Yogan is not a blog. Nor are the February 10, 2010 or June 21, 2010 (pre-draft) Sun-Sentinel articles about Yogan.  Not is the March 26, 2010 Palm Beach Post article about Yogan a blog.  And even blogs by staff writers on papers like the Miami Herald or the Daily News qualify as reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The The Peterborough Examiner story about him not related to the NHL draft I just added is also not a blog.  It was inspired by a trade, which in itself is a transaction not indicative of notability, but the full length story about Yogan inspired by the trade is indicative of notability. Rlendog (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A local paper having an article about the new addition to the team is the definition of a routine article. Now if say Edmonton (completely random city) had an article about him being added to the Petes then that would be an article that showed some notability. But local articles about routine things like new players being added to the local team do not show much notability. Blogs of staff writers don't necessarily qualify as reliable because they don't go through the same quality checks that the actual articles do. This is why we don't generally use blogs to establish notability. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that a local story about a new addition to the team by itself is not "much" notability. But it is some evidence of his notability, especially since not all players added to teams get full length stories about them.  What would be routine would be if the paper had a few lines stating that the Petes traded a couple of draft picks for Yogan and perhaps a sentence or two of background.  And the Peterborough article is just one of several non-blog articles in the article that are entirely or primarily about Yogan. Rlendog (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He apparently attracted additional coverage back in 2007 when he became a rare player to join the OHL out of Florida. I know there was another story about this that I saw a while back but can't find it now. Rlendog (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep Appears to meet the GNG. --Hockeyben (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2012 (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.