Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Russell


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  10:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Jamie Russell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources from his hiring/leaving and some game coverage as an ice hockey coach. As coach and player, he fails WP:NHOCKEY by never participating in a high enough league and has won no major awards (individual as needed by NHOCKEY, closest is a conference title while he was an assistant) in either role. Yosemiter (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

*Weak Keep: Truth be told, I think that Coach of the Year award from the WCHA suffices to meet NHOCKEY.   Ravenswing   18:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. per Ravenswing. WCHA Coach of the Year award certainly appears to meet the spirit of WP:NHOCKEY #4. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC with sources like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that. Being a conference coach of the year seems akin to being all-conference as a player and that is insufficient to meet WP:NHOCKEY.  If he was the national coach of the year I think there'd be no question about his notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There are 6 conference Coaches of the Year every year, and there are 6 1st-Team All-Americans every year. I'd argue that being a conference Coach of the Year is roughly the relative coaching equivalent of being named a 1st-Team All-American in any given year. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your analogy. There's one All-American first team player for each position so there should be one coach.  We don't have 6 All-Americans at each position. Papaursa (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point, withdrawing my vote.   Ravenswing   16:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * College head coaches are a lot more notable then college players, though. Anyways, sources have now been provided above to show that Russell meets WP:GNG, so it's a moot point. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Analysis of sources: 1) local Elimira paper covering local Elmira team transaction - routine. 2) St. Cloud paper wrote an article on the coach of team it is about to play on a page entirely devoted to upcoming match - routine. 3) St. Cloud paper article on the new coach of the team it is about to play - game preview is on another page of the section -routine. 4) Elmira paper covering local Elmira team hiring - routine. 5) Really short three sentence blurb about hiring at MTU - lacks significant depth. 6) Worcester news article about Worcester coach hiring - routine. 7) College hockey blog - decent depth of coverage, hard to tell reliability or independence, also reads a bit like a blog. 8) Worcester news covering Worcester hockey team -routine. In the end, I am still not sure I am seeing multiple sources that individually meet each requirement of GNG. Borderline maybe. Yosemiter (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see What is and is not routine coverage. A box score is routine coverage, a feature article is not routine coverage. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Useful, but the other essay WP:MILL might consider it routine as it is only local coverage and the sources are fully expected to cover the local happenings. Hence why I said it would be borderline. Even I have been covered in various local papers at least two times due to sports and community service (back page-type articles, I am in no way notable). Yosemiter (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In terms of sports, WP:MILL specifically only mentions individual game coverage within the context of trying to create individual game articles (e.g."July 8 Cardinals vs. Brewers game", etc). None of the above fits into that category. Now, this is an example of what would be considered routine coverage of Russell, per both WP:ROUTINE and WP:MILL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete We have had countless collegiate players achieve 1st team awards but were viewed as fails because there were not 1st or 2nd team all-american, how is this different?  I suppose if you view the coaching recognition as "preeminent honors" you could build a case, but I disagree.  I believe it should be national recognition to be a proper comparable to the player achievements.18abruce (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete As I stated above, and in agreement with 18abruce's argument, being all-conference isn't sufficient to show hockey notability for players and so it shouldn't be enough for coaches. I don't believe WP:NHOCKEY is met and I don't see the coverage to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet WP:NHOCKEY and overall fails WP:GNG. --EC Racing (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2017 (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.