Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Scherban


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Joel Scherban

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. He never played professional hockey and while he has honours at college (First All-Star and Player of the Year), CIS/U Sports doesn't actually qualify to pass #4, or in the very least it is not listed. He also coached in U Sports but this, I don't think, is enough for him to pass. But per usual, if I am wrong let me know. Tay87 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * comment I have mixed feelings. He doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY or the GNG. However, winning the annual award for being the best college hockey player in Canada seems to meet WP:NCOLLATH. I'd like to see what others think.Sandals1 (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * comment, a Google seach returns more results about his coaching career than his playing career. However those articles are from the Thunder Bay area. Flibirigit (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that being the Canadian college hockey player of the year meets WP:NCOLLATH criteria #1. I might feel differently if it was a different sport, but hockey is a big deal in Canada (duh!). Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. CIS's Sullivan Trophy could clear COLLATH #1 if it were reliably sourced, but it is not a notability freebie that exempts him from having to have any acceptable sources just because you can technically source the fact to a list of the award winners on CIS's own self-published website. "Notability because award" attaches to awards that get media coverage, and not to awards that do not, especially given that even the CIS list just mentions his name, and fails to say anything of substance about him. We do still have to be able to verify everything else the article says about him too, so people are not exempted from having to clear GNG just because the article text has the word "award" in it. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean about the sourcing of him winning the Sullivan Trophy. My search found articles from the college, the conference, the CIS, and mentions in articles about other Sullivan winners. Not necessarily great coverage, but enough to confirm he did win the award and that it matters to Canadian college hockey fans. Except for organizational size and influence, I'm not sure of the difference between this award and NCAA player of the year awards. Papaursa (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Articles from the college, the conference, the CIS" are primary sources, not notability-conferring media coverage — the degree to which an award constitutes a notability claim for its winners is always strictly coterminous with the degree to which media outlets publish journalism which reports the winning of that award as news. An award that gets journalistic coverage in real media is a notable award, but an award that has to be sourced to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself, because journalistic coverage about it in real media is non-existent, is not a notable award. It's the same as the reason why over in the film domain the Academy Awards are notability-makers, while the Young Artist Awards are not: the Academy Awards get broad nationalized and internationalized media coverage which reports their nominees and winners as news, and the Young Artist Awards don't. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NCOLLATH. Winning this would undoubtedly been covered in newspapers and not just primary sources, the most minor of hockey awards even at the college level in Canada end up with news blurbs. Unfortunately it was 15 years ago so finding internet based sources will be harder so going to newspaper archives may be required. This is precisely the type of article that is supposed to benefit from the help of NSPORTS. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, precisely the problem is that real notability-supporting media largely don't cover CIS sports in anything even approaching the depth or volume that American college athletes can sometimes, but still not always, show. So we can't just assume that the necessary coverage "undoubtedly" exists — in Canadian media vis-à-vis the CIS, it often does not. WP:NEXIST requires you to show actual evidence that the necessary depth and range and volume of media coverage definitely does exist, and is not a compelling keep argument if all you do is speculate about what possibly might maybe exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NCOLLATH. As Djsasso says, this is the type of case that the specific notability guideline is supposed to simplify by avoiding the needs identify specific instances of coverage meeting GNG where there is consensus that the subject meets criteria that would cause it to meet GNG.  There is also an argument above to ignore the primary source that he meets NCOLLATH.  This is a misreading - all we need in this case is a reliable source and primary sources can be reliable.  But regardless I did find a reliable secondary source from the Edmonton Journal. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * SNGs don't exempt people from having to have media coverage; they clarify the types of things that constitute notability claims if they're supported by media coverage, but do not exempt a person from having to have media coverage to support them. The notability test is always the depth and breadth of sourcing that can be provided to support the things the article says, and never just the statement itself without properly sourcing it. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * SNGs provide a presumption that the subject meeting the SNG has the necessary coverage. The presumption can be refuted, but it hasn't in this case. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What hasn't been shown in this case is any discernible evidence that he does have the necessary coverage. Even your clipping is not a journalist-written article about Joel Scherban, but just a glancing namecheck of his existence in a statistical table on the sports-scores page — which means it isn't even a notability-supporting source at all, let alone an instant notability clincher. Bearcat (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NCOLLATH.4meter4 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2019 (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.