Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry D'Amigo (3rd 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   no consensus. Scott Mac 21:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Jerry D'Amigo
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Minor/junior leaguer who has not been in the NHL. Was twice previously nominated for deletion. The result both times was Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Once he plays in the NHL, or plays 100 games in the AHL (he currently has 41), then the page can be re-created. Iftelse (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —DJSasso (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Meets the WP:GNG which supersedes WP:NHOCKEY.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep He definitely meets WP:GNG (a Matter of fact Yahoo Sports wrote an article on him just a few days ago ). Also, he, arguably, satisfies WP:NHOCKEY as he was won Rookie of the Year at the NCAA level.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The reason that he currenty has an article, is 'cuz he's a hockey player. He doesn't meet NHOCKEY's criteria, however. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you quote something in WP:HOCKEY which indicates that you can't use "hockey player" sources to meet WP:N? It certainly isn't clear to me, and as I indicated below it seems to say exactly the opposite. Hobit (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: The criterion of NHOCKEY being misapplied here is to claim that "Rookie of the Year" is a "major award" comparable to being a First Team All-Star, an All-American or a top ten career all-time scorer, the other elements of N#4. This was not the original intent of the clause.  Presuming that a Yahoo blog counts as a reliable sources, that's nice enough, but the links provided all fall under routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE.   Ravenswing  01:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First, that wasn't a yahoo blog article it's a yahoo sports as yahoo blogs have yahoo blog written on then. Also, you consider these routine coverage then I don't know what isn't then. This article interviews him and his dad about his demotion. I don't thing thats just an article on an announcement as WP:ROUTINE says and most players don't get interviews like that when they get sent down unless they are a big prospect. This one reports on his season to date . This one  writes on his impact on the Rangers. These are all on the article, so I don't know how you can say that the article sources are all routine coverage. You can find more on google easily.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, here's a yahoo blog . You can also tell by the fact that yahoo blogs almost always have a comment section. Articles rarely do.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I am on the fence with this one. He definitely was not notable the first time I nominated him. But alot has happened in the time between then and now, he has been written about a fair amount up here in Canada I am sure. I would have to look for sources to be sure though. It's definitely not a slam dunk delete or keep. -DJSasso (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * keep From WP:HOCKEY "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline." it is clear he has non-trivial coverage. ,  are enough by themselves.  , , etc. are way more than needed to meet WP:N.  And to argue that articles that are solely about the subject are somehow "routine" seems to turn WP:N on its head.  Sure, we don't count coverage of matches, but sole coverage of a single person in an independent RS always counts toward WP:N.  Hobit (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG.RonSigPi (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet NHOCKEY requirements.USA1168 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about Rookie of the Year at the NCAA level. Doesn't that fall under number 4 of NHOCKEY. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would say it doesn't. It's a significant award, but I don't know that I'd call it "major".  Powers T 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then, how about the GNG? Hobit (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't investigated the sources enough to say. Powers T 15:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * CLARIFICATION THE NCAA RotY last season was not D'Amigo, but Stephane Da Costa, D'Amigo was the ECAC RotY. And before anyone goes down that road, Da Costa ALSO meet NHOCKEY by representing France in 2 IIHF Worlds (not junior). ccwaters (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I said at the NCAA level not the NCAA Rookie of the Year. ECAC is a conference award much like the AL rookie of the year in the MLB. Also, D'Amigo was a rookie in 2009 not 2010.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly - Honestly I'd never heard of rookie of the year awards being given at the collegiate level, but if they are...meh, it scrapes by. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 21 February 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.