Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Gregoire (2nd nomination)


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Jeremy Gregoire
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Failing WP:NHOCKEY by itself is not a valid reason to delete, since there are other ways a subject can attain notability, such as WP:GNG. And there is at least one substantial source in the article.  Rlendog (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep.. two time winner of the QMJHL scholastic player of the year..kinda a notable award Triggerbit (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That isn't a notable award. Joeykai (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not by itself. But it generated at least one instance of significant coverage for the subject that is already included in the article.  And there may be more, which is why it is particularly important to address GNG here. Rlendog (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you've found others, would you mind sharing them? Beyond that, I disagree with Triggerbit: this isn't a QMJHL award, and wouldn't be considered notable if it was.   Ravenswing   13:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have not found other instances of significant coverage, and apparently no one else has. The Guy Lafleur award itself does not meet NHOCKEY, and one article about winning the award is not enough to satisfy GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete That award definitely is not a major award. And I can't find any significant coverage on the player. Fails to meet GNG or NHOCKEY. Nothing has changed significantly since the last nomination. Should have been a speedy. -DJSasso (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree that the subject fails to meet NHOCKEY and shows no evidence of meeting the GNG. The only cite from a reliable media source doesn't clear WP:ROUTINE.   Ravenswing   13:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has twice won a notable award (Guy Lafleur Award of Excellence) and has been the subject of in-depth coverage in several sources:   . The subject has also been mentioned in numerous additional sources. Passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.- MrX 23:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Quite aside from that the notability of this award is suspect enough that I'm about to prod it -- only a handful of reliable sources even mention it, and not a single one gives the award "significant coverage" (as opposed to "Soandso is the 2014 winner etc") -- what notability criterion gives a presumptive pass for winning it? Moving on to your links, in order to meet the GNG, a subject must (a) receive "significant coverage" in (b) multiple (c) reliable sources which (d) do not constitute routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE.  Three of your four links are blog posts; all involve routine sports coverage.  Mere mention in other sources, no matter how numerous, do not satisfy the GNG.   Ravenswing   04:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If policy is supposed to describe how content is treated in practice, then widespread practice would show that many thousands of articles are based on sports news. Just the number of football player articles alone strongly supports that we would retain an article where the subject was noted for standing out from his peers.- MrX 11:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're missing a crucial distinction: that the bar for sources supporting facts listed in an article is far lower than for those certifying the notability of the subject. A match report could verify that a player had reached a milestone in a particular game; a biographical webpage on the website of a subject's employer could verify a birthdate or spouse's name. We'd accept both for those purposes.  We'd accept neither as evidence of the subject's notability. Beyond that, it can't be news to you that notability criteria establish thresholds.  A singer who won a local 'battle of the bands' competition certainly would have been "noted for standing out from her peers," but WP:MUSICBIO plainly sets forth that what consensus holds to be a significant award for notability purposes is a Grammy nomination or thereabouts.  By contrast, "standing out from one's peers" (which is entirely subjective) forms no part of any NSPORTS criteria.  Competing at the top levels of performance does.  Gregoire didn't win a major NHL trophy; he won, frankly, a minor award for academic achievement, unsanctioned by any league, and did so as a teenage amateur. Ultimately, though, this is looking like a smokescreen.  If Gregoire was truly notable, there'd be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources saying so.  If you're convinced of his notability, you should be able to produce such qualifying sources, and I'll be pleased to change my vote if you do.   Ravenswing   12:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 05:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I meant to comment sooner especially no one else had, there:s simply nothing, regardless of any notable awards, at best confidently suggesting keeping as his own article. This would at best be better linked to his best known work instead. SwisterTwister   talk  07:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep weak though. Sees to have a reasonable number of mentions in secondary sources, but freely admit I do not know enough about them to assess their reliability.  Aoziwe (talk) 15:05, 24 June 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.