Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Černák


 * 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. WP:GNG takes precedent over WP:NHOCKEY. Sources do not have to be in English to be considered reliable and the keep arguments have addressed WP:BURDEN. Mkdw talk 04:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Erik Černák

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  15:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on why a player who received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources fails GNG? Rlendog (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems to have gotten adequate coverage in Slovakian sources, e.g., here, here, here and here. Also apparently received some coverage in the US as a potential 1st round draft pick, although he ended up being picked in the 2nd round, e.g., this.  And has received further coverage in North America, e.g., this. Rlendog (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to be technical pretty much all of those are Q&A articles which are specifically debarred from proving notability. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The last Slovak article I linked is pretty much Q&A. But the first is not at all.  The 2nd and 3rd seem to intergrate some quotes from Cernak into the articles so there is some degree of Q&A but not entirely (and in the case of the 3rd not much at all).  The Hockey Writers article is also not a Q&A.  The draft article I admit is weak, but there is other draft coverage (admittedly also minor) that I found, and the fact that he was regarded as a potential 1st round pick is indicative that there may well be more coverage that is more difficult to find.  But even if you exclude entirely the 2nd and last Slovak articles and the draft article that I linked, that still leaves 3 substantial articles (and I think even under the harshest interpretation of debarring Q&A articles the 2nd Slovak article should not be completely dismissed). Rlendog (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not certain that this is a reliable source but here is some more pre-draft coverage he received . Rlendog (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on why a player who received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is "non-notable"? Rlendog (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Rlendog, sources meet GNG. -- Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 14:33, 6 August 2016 (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.