Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Wydo


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Cody Wydo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The most significant award Wydo has won is 2014 Tournament MVP. I don't believe that qualifies under WP:NHOCKEY's fourth criterion for "preeminent honors". The article doesn't have sufficient sources to demonstrate notability under the GNG. Powers T 17:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Not quite correct: Wydo won, and the article states, First Team league All-Star honors, which does qualify under Criterion #4.   Ravenswing   18:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that. Nonetheless, I consider the "first team league all-star" criterion extremely weak, particularly when it comes to college hockey leagues (which almost never have more than 12 teams). Powers T 00:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would not accept first team all-star of a tiny conference as "preeminent". Undrafted player, no indication of anything approaching a pro career on the horizon. Lets just call this what it is - an ego-driven creation of a nn player article by a now indef-blocked editor.  Resolute 18:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. A very weak pass of WP:NHOCKEY, but this fails WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. A Google search reveals additional sources, not currently in the article. That, plus the fact that he actually meets WP:NHOCKEY anyway, is enough for me. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done the same search and all of the articles that come up would fall under routine coverage. Deadman137 (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes; the question is not whether there's coverage, but whether there's coverage that is unique to Wydo, and not just the sort of coverage that any college hockey player would receive. Powers T 13:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The reasoning for keeping Scott Mathis points to a keep here.Joeykai (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, though, I would contend that the "first-team All-Star" criterion is misapplied in the case of college hockey leagues. With only 6-12 teams per conference, it's not as significant an award as it would be in a 20- or 30-team minor professional or junior league. "All-American" is the criterion by which we should be evaluating college hockey players, as it's much more comparable. Keep in mind that these awards are supposed to serve as proxies -- they are selected as criteria because they are predictive about notable coverage being out there somewhere, even if the coverage hasn't been found yet.  By that metric, first-team all-conference in college hockey really doesn't qualify.  Powers T 18:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * All of the above aside, Wydo is a finalist for the Hobey Baker Award, marking him as one of the ten best players in men's college hockey this year. Due to that development, I withdraw this nomination. But I would like to continue the discussion of the issues raised, somewhere. Powers T 19:01, 23 March 2015 (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.