Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayce Hawryluk


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 04:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Jayce Hawryluk

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He has been drafted to the NHL but only in the second round. If he plays in the NHL then he should be included, but until then this is a case of WP:NotJustYet. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. While this high second round draft pick falls just short of the criteria of NHOCKEY, the subject does however pass WP:GNG as evidenced by the many independent and reliable sources within the article, and the many more reliable sources which can be easily found on-line. Dolovis (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails NHOCKEY, and the sources Dolovis alludes to are mostly trivial, local, or in at least three cases, blogs or other clearly non-RS sources.  As a "veteran editor", Dolovis should know full well that blogs are not reliable sources, yet despite being told so previously, continues to use them as part of his ego-feeding need to create articles on non-notable players. Resolute 15:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please identify which ones you feel are non-reliable, so they can be replaced, or the related claims removed. Note, I'm not disagreeing with you that there are unreliable sources used, I just am not familar with hockey specific sources, and am reluctant to remove sources as a result.  --Rob (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Blogspot blog being the most obvious (and it is embarrassing to Wikipedia that Dolovis actually felt that was appropriate). Hockey's Future is basically a fansite, with all the baises that come from that. It is not something I would ever pin reliability on. "Independent Sports News", likewise. Though that just looks like a reprint of a press release. Resolute 14:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: One of the many, many articles Dolovis has created (and one of the many taken to AfD) where he claims that blogs, team websites, casual mentions, routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE and non-independent sources constitute reliable sources which pass the GNG. At this point, I'd look very favorably towards sanctions debarring him from article creation.   Ravenswing   19:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG    .  There are multiple independent reliable sources giving indepth coverage of this person (more than what's in article or here).  The coverage goes well beyond reporting who scored a goal in yesterday's game.  Yes, the coverage is largely local, but we're not talking about just a little paper in a small town reporting on a local boy.  There is a good basis for having a full well sourced biography, even if there were never another news story on him in the future.  The article would warrant being kept, even if he hadn't been selected in the draft.  I agree the current article needs a lot of improvement.  But, what counts is there is a solid basis for improvement. --Rob (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets GNG per Rob's sources. GNG trumps NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Rob's sources are local and fail WP:ROUTINE coverage in that it is coverage about a local boy in a local paper and a single news event about being drafted. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ROUTINE is about events, not people. For bios, what counts is there is substantial coverage of the person.  If he were just one of multiple names mentioned, that wouldn't convey notability.  But, when a story is primarily about one person, and talks of their life, that shows notability. Also, note that not all the stories are of "a single news event about being drafted".  He's been drafted twice, both times getting substantial coverage.  He's also gotten coverage of him for other reasons, such as his injury and hospitalization.  --Rob (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * None of Rob's sources meet the criteria of WP:ROUTINE. At least the three that don't have a paywall have substantive discussion of the subject, and are not merely sports scores.  As for the sources being local, Rob provided multiple sources from each of Brandon and Winnipeg, so he is getting coverage beyond just a local area.  Plus he got a nice bio in Florida here.  So he had now received significant coverage in at least 3 cities in 2 different countries. Rlendog (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * An article written about a local amateur sports player is often considered to be routine coverage in that papers will write those sorts of articles about any local player who does remotely well in their sport including high school players and 8 year olds. As for more than just the local area, Winnepeg and Brandon are essentially the same local area (having lived there). And Florida being that he was drafted by the Florida Panthers would also be a local article. What we need is articles from national publications or from somewhere not local such as say Toronto or Boston talking about him. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hawryluk also got several paragraphs of coverage in this NHL.com article. But I disagree with both your assessments of local and routine coverage.  Even accepting Brandon and Winnipeg as the same local area, despite being in different regions of Manitoba about 200 miles apart, Florida is certainly not the same local area.  Florida drafted him, but he is not local to Florida (or if he is, he is not local to Manitoba), and he got more coverage in Florida than many draftees.  Once he is getting coverage in mulitple locations, he has received coverage over a widespread area, and satisfies the criteria of WP:GEOSCOPE, even assuming that guideline applies to people rather than events.  And once the the stories is significant newspapers choose to write a story about someone who "does remotely well," they have made an editorial decision that goes beyond the limits of the items in WP:ROUTINE.  And this is hardly a story about an 8 year old doing remotely well, these are stories about a junior hockey player doing well enough to be considered for the NHL.  And multiple sources have made the determination that this person is worthy of an article multiple times. Rlendog (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also found some coverage of him in The Hockey News and The Montreal Gazette. I would not regard either of these as significant enough to support notability by themeselves.  But combined with the significant coverage provided elsewhere, they show that reliable sources outside of just Manitoba and Florida saw this person as being worthy enough to write a paragraph about him among a limited group of significant players. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 *  Keep. Appears to meet the GNG. Mice never shop (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. User:Thivierr appears to have substantially upgraded the references within the article during the course of this AfD. Previous (and future) participants here do not seem to have noticed this, but might like to review the revised references. PWilkinson (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed somewhat. I am very appreciative of the work that Thivierr put in (which Dolovis could have done as well, but as usual, takes the laziest path possible and leaves such work to others), but other than the NHL.com link, it remains local coverage and trivial mentions.  That may be enough to pull this to a no consensus close, but I will leave that determination to the closing admin. Resolute 13:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Like you, I am a volunteer. I created a stub article for this notable hockey player containing enough information for other editors to expand upon it. I do not own this article, and work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. So when you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes yourself. Dolovis (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay  Jay What did I do? 20:14, 7 July 2014 (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.