Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Staal


 * 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. snow closure, all consensus is towards keeping the article. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *poke* 23:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Staal

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Minor league hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. His brothers play in the NHL, bur notability is not inherited. Dolovis (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Going keep for a couple of reasons. 1.  I realize that notability isn't inherited, but Jared does have significant coverage of his career and life above and beyond mere comparisons to his brothers.  2.  He definitely fails WP:NHOCKEY, but he passes WP:GNG which means he is still notable and worthy of his own article.  3. He has had continuing in depth coverage for a significant period of time (and not just solely when he was draft eligible).  Here are some sources I found in a quick search that all have Jared as the main subject and are fairly in depth, and from a variety of sources: nhl.com (2008), nhl.com 2(2010), Arizona Republic, canada.com, CBC, tbnewswatch, OSC. Ravendrop (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KeepCome on, what are we doing here? Deleting everything in sight? Why not keep the article it is in the standards of Wikipedia. --Nhlrules 22:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhlrules (talk • contribs)
 * Keep WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a policy. Staal easily passes WP:GNG even though he does not pass NHOCKEY (it is possible).  Grsz 11 05:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep extensive media coverage focused on him individually, especially in Canada. Passes WP:GNG blindfolded. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Honestly Dolovis, try exercising some common sense.  Staal easily has sufficient, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to pass notability. Easily. Resolute 15:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to Resolute: Past discussions have set clear precedents that, barring a successful Goaltender Exception or WP:GNG argument (complete with links to reliable independent sources), a hockey player will not be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article unless that player explicitly passes one or more of the criteria set out at WP:NHOCKEY. If you can support your GNG argument with significant, reliable, and independent sources that are not primarily about how he has two brothers in the NHL, then show us. Dolovis (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? There was an independant link on it already that supported notability. More have been added and a number are listed in this discussion already. Do you even try to do good faith searches? Please read the entire page that nhockey appears on because you will see this very important line "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". To think that a Staal brother has not had enough individual coverage is extremely laughable. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nom's comments on the sources found by Ravendrop: The sources found show only his relationship with his NHL brothers, and do not establish individual notability for little brother Jared.
 * 1. NHL Press Release titled Bloodlines help, hinder Jared Staal's draft evaluation (about his relation to NHL brothers)
 * 2. NHL Press Release titled Jared Staal takes brothers' advice seriously (about his relation to NHL brothers)
 * 3. Local Arizona newspaper article titled Jared just the latest in the Staal lineage (about his relation to NHL brothers)
 * 4. Newspaper article titled Family trees are fine and scouts look at lineage as much as height and weight (about his relation to NHL brothers)
 * 5. Article based on Press Release titled Coyotes release Jared Staal (content is about his relation to NHL brothers)
 * 6. Blog (not reliable) titled Staals ready to join forces in Carolina (about his relation to NHL brothers) –
 * 7. AHL press release titled Rampage Sign Staal To ATO, Reassign Weston To Las Vegas (not independent or significant)

Dolovis (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to take a moment to learn what a press release is if you think the first two links are such. I see significant coverage from a major hockey league and from major Canadian and American newspapers.  Sorry, but that passes WP:N easily. Resolute 15:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realize mentioning his brothers doesn't mean the article isn't about him. Inheiriting notability is saying someone is notable without any sources at all, for example saying the daughter of an NHLer is notable solely for the fact they are his daughter...in this case he has sources that just happen to mention his brothers. Not to mention there are a number of independant sources on the article now from papers that do not mention his brothers except in passing or not at all. The CBC, Fox News, The Canadian Press and on and on... -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, perhaps you ought to consider the meaning of WP:NOTINHERITED. It doesn't mean that someone who wouldn't be well known without more famous kinfolk is disbarred from an article.  It means that there is no presumptive notability for that person.  Would the likes of Billy Carter or Jenna Bush have become famous on their own?  Of course not.  Do they pass the GNG?  Without the shadow of a doubt.  How many of those newspaper articles refer to their more famous kinfolk?  Just about all of them, I expect.  Does the GNG have an exception for those cases?  No, it does not.   Ravenswing  16:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:SNOW and per Ravendrop. Let's be honest, the Staal family and its individual members have probably established more notability in recent years than any other family in this country, including the Harpers or any other recent PM. Seriously, their parents could pass WP:GNG based on the coverage they have received. So to say that one of their sons doesn't is ludicrous. Step 9 in WP:BEFORE mentions that "before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist". I'm not sure these attempts were made for this article. If they were, this article would not be at AfD. At any rate, this article is an easy pass at GNG. – Nurmsook!  talk...  17:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did follow WP:BEFORE, and I seriously am of the opinion that the newspaper articles would not have been written if Jared did not have three NHL brothers. The sources are about the Staal brothers more than they are about Jared. As a hockey player Jared is not yet notable. Your argument is that as the younger brother in a hockey family he is notable under GNG. But that is precisely the meaning of inherited notability, if you are notable for nothing more than kinship, then you are not notable by Wikipedia standards. If not for his famous brothers he would be just another minor league who has not yet made the grade. This article would be better served (and in keeping with policy) if it were redirected to Staal brothers. As a stand-alone member of the family he is not yet notable. Given time, he may someday play in the NHL or in 100 minor pro games- and at that time this article may be restored, but as of now that is just Crystal Ball gazing. Dolovis (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter why the newspapers are written. That is the point. Once the articles are written it doesn't matter who he is, he had articles written about him. WP:INHEIRETED is about people who are siblings who do not have sources at all. For example say Sidney Crosby had a baby tomorrow. His baby would not be notable just for being the kid of Crosby. However, once articles were written about the kid talking about him and/or things he did, then he would have met notability on his own. This is what has happened for Jared, maybe people started writing about him because he is a Staal a few years ago, but once they started talking about him specifically then he became notable. All that matters is are there articles talking about them significantly or not. In his case there is. -DJSasso (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To illustrate the difference about an article about the brothers and one about him that mentions the brothers is this one Staal brothers hockey's Second Family and Staal brothers aiming for an Olympic hat trick, which are about the family and not one specific member. These two would not qualify as providing notability on Jared. Whereas the sources on Jared's article and the ones above are clearly aimed at being about Jared. -DJSasso (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to mine (even if it is in the minority). The articles are not significantly about Jared. They are about his kinship. The other sources are routine sports coverage that mentions signings and trades, and are not considered significant coverage. Dolovis (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You certainly can, haven't remotely said you couldn't. What I have said is that you are incorrect. Large sections of these articles talk specifically about Jared. As you yourself have pointed out a number of times, the entire article doesn't have to be about the subject. Also a full article talking about a trade and talking about the players involved is different than a one line sentence mentioning a trade which would be routine coverage. There are degrees with everything in otherwords non-notable players would likely have their trade mentioned in a one line trade tracker, whereas a notable player will have an entire article talking about it. Perhaps you just aren't good at noticing the nuances of these things, I am not sure. -DJSasso (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My argument is not remotely anything of the sort. It is exactly as I stated it, without third-party revisionism.  The text of the GNG is very clear: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."  There's no qualifier there.   Ravenswing  21:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The articles are not significantly about Jared." They most certainly are. The two NHL articles are significantly about him.  Grsz 11 22:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The two NHL articles do not qualify as "independent". Dolovis (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you're just making things up. Amuse me, how aren't they "independent"? In 2008, he wasn't even drafted, and in 2010 still isn't an NHL player. But please elaborate.  Grsz 11 00:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's time that you read Independent sources: "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)". The NHL has a clear conflict of interest in promoting the game of hockey. This includes the promotion of current players and prospects. The NHL source may be used as a reference, but not to establish notability. Dolovis (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, by your logic that would make any organization that makes money off hockey to not be independent, such as TSN or CBC. There is a difference between an article by a staff writer about a player who is not yet even an NHL player and an NHL press release. The first would be independent and the second would not be. -DJSasso (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha. I love your sarcastic humour. But seriously, any article by a staff NHL writer about an NHL player or prospect cannot be considered independent. A TSN or CBC news article would be considered independent. Dolovis (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's your opinion, most of your articles would be toast.  Grsz 11 03:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dolovis, if "independent" according to the policy means "no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)", how exactly do you justify that the NHL is a different circumstance than CBC Sports or TSN? These two companies make a ton of money off of the publication of off the NHL and its prospects. You do know how much money the World Juniors brings into TSN, right? That's basically a tournament of NHL prospects. Your reasonings are becoming extremely murky and you are stepping into the realm of WP:POINT, although I'm not quite sure what your point is in consistently picking fights here. Show some WP:GOODFAITH and understand that we are not out to get anyone, we all follow policy, and have been for the years and years that we have been editing. – Nurmsook!  talk...  04:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What amuses me is that just the other day he made an arguement that if the NHL considers something notable then we should when it came to award winners. Now he is making the opposite arguement. -DJSasso (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no articles that are "my" articles. All Wikipedia content is open to being edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article. Dolovis (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am interested to see the discussion for Articles for deletion/David Toews which carries the same reasons for deletion as this one. Dolovis (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you are intentionally being obtuse, you know darn well he meant ones you created. At this point you have clearly gone into WP:POINT territory. You know it is ok to say you were wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This Afd about the notability of Jared Staal was made in good faith. It isn't about me, and this isn't about other discussions on other issues. Please keep your points of discussion to the issue of notability. Dolovis (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We have been, and its looking more like it wasn't made on good faith, that is what we are trying to say in a gentle way. People have gently been trying to warn you that such pointy type arguments generally get people into trouble. -DJSasso (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We are all trying to improve the Wikipedia project. In this case you disagree with me, and that is fine. There is no POINT argument being made here. If the consensus disagrees with this nomination then the article will be kept, and I will take no further issue with that. I have said all that is needed to be said on this issue and I will not be responding to further personal remarks or to questions for further clarifications of my arguments. Dolovis (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You say that "if the consensus disagrees with this nomination then the article will be kept, and I will take no further issue with that." However, you have specifically said that you are "interested to see the discussion for Articles for deletion/David Toews which carries the same reasons for deletion as this one". You created that AfD after a consensus here had already been built to keep. This is one of the main reasons why so many users are warning you of WP:POINT and WP:FAITH. You say that you won't take further issue, but the fact is pretty obvious that you have by creating a self-admitted identical AfD. No one here is out to get you, it's just extremely frustrating to see the relentless action. We all want to improve Wikipedia, but by consistently forcing our attention on these ridiculous AfDs, it takes a lot of our time away from improving the Wiki. – Nurmsook!  talk...  15:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Too right. Dolovis, sooner or later you're going to understand something important, which is that consensus on some of these issues is - and will remain, at least in the short term - against you.  It's like the diacritical issue for me.  Truth be told, I consider the current consensus bullshit: this is the English Wikipedia, and we ought to follow proven English-language usages for names and leave the foreign Wikis to tend to their own knitting.  Why don't I keep hammering on it?  Because I'm outvoted. I don't feel the need to attempt to overturn the Project's consensus on each and every article because it's a losing fight that will waste my time and everyone else's time when it comes to improving articles.  Just like, as Nurmsook accurately says, this is a flaming waste of all our time.   Ravenswing  17:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The purpose of the NOT-INHERIT guideline is to prohibit Gary Sutter (the one that stayed home and tended the farm) from having an article. The spotlight might have been offered to Jared via his brothers, but he's stepped into it by his own actions. Here a non-hockey example of for precedent Articles for deletion/Roger Clinton, Jr., I'm sure it won't be hard to find others. ccwaters (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2011 (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.