Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daultan Leveille


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 15:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Daultan Leveille

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Player has not played at a professional level, nor at the top international level. Thus, he fails to meet the criteria at WP:ATHLETE. The article can be recreated if/when he ever does play professionally or in top international competition. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep He meets the Ice hockey notability essay at WP:HOCKEY in that he was drafted in the first round. And a quick look through google shows that there is probably enough sources to pass notability anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional references will need to be added to the article to confirm notability. Currently, the only references are from the OHA and his OHA team (the latter just points to the team's website, not any particular article), and a brief mention from the OHL that he was drafted in the 9th round of the 2006 OHL draft. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done two newspaper articles with significant coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: per above. Consensus and WP:HOCKEY/PPF have held that first round draft picks are notable.    Ravenswing  15:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: He's a first round pick. Captain Courageous (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure being drafted in the first round imbues notability. Do first rounders from the 60s (e.g. Alec Campbell and Andy Culligan, 2nd overall in 1964 and 1965, respectively) each deserve an article, when there are almost certainly no reliable sources with significant coverage of these two? Conversely, is a player drafted 30th overall nowadays (i.e. first round) more notable than a player drafted 7th overall from 1963 through 1966 (i.e. second round)? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now-a-days? Yes, you can almost completely be guaranteed that someone in the first round of the draft will have had atleast 3 articles about them which would make them pass WP:BIO and WP:V. As for first rounders back a long time ago, I am thinking there probably would have been articles written for them as well to pass, but I haven't personally gone looking. -DJSasso (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The NHL entry draft was a different animal in the 1960s; before 1969, many players were signed by NHL clubs as teenagers or even as pre-teens, thus making the talent pool very slender. For instance, in that 1965 draft you cite, the closest thing to a substantive NHL player in that was Pierre Bouchard ... but among Bouchard's agemates were Bobby Orr, Rene Robert, Mickey Redmond, Guy Lapointe, Glenn Resch, Walt Tkaczuk and Garry Unger, the likes of whom would've dominated the draft had they been subjected to it.  Beyond that, you had anomalies such as Montreal's right to select up to two Quebecois players as prior selections in lieu of their normal picks.  The first genuinely open draft was 1970.   Ravenswing  19:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. First round draft picks are generally considered to be notable.  Patken4 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Question – Supposing he never plays professionally, are the two TSN references enough to warrant inclusion? (The WILX and LSU references are local news; the OHA and OHL merely mention his name with no coverage.) In other words, if this was a player drafted in 1990 who never played any profession hockey, would two brief articles (from a single author and single publication) that boil down to "scouts are interested in this guy" convince you that the person is notable today? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not the point. The point of notability criteria, either explicit or consensus-driven, is that hitting one or more is a qualifier, whether or not others are met.  Leveille may indeed never play professional hockey, but no one advocating Keep claims that as a reason to do so.  We claim that he does so by reason of being a first round draft choice, and that remains.    Ravenswing  14:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, he passes WP:HOCKEY/PPF] but not [[WP:N (based on the references currently in the article). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He does pass WP:N based on the references present. There is nothing in WP:N that says local references are no good. The papers are both independant from him which is all that is required. And both are considered reliable. Nevermind the national TV station and website which is oen of the biggest hockey media organizations in the world. Really there is no case for claiming he doesn't pass WP:N. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And for what its worth I just picked the first two articles that popped up in google with decent coverage about him. I could probably find non-local ones if necessary as well. First rounders are generally profiled in magazines like the hockey news and on stations like TSN. All of which are acceptable sources. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2010 (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.