Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Pitlick


 * 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. While the arguments for retention have a certain appeal, the deletes are more strongly grounded in policy. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Tyler Pitlick

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Disputed prod. This player fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. The deprodder mentioned that since the AHL season is about to start it should be left. However I would note that is WP:CRYSTALBALLing. Even if he played a full season of AHL games he would still not meet the requirements of NHOCKEY which is why they are set up the way they are, so that players that are included play more than a single season in a pro league below the NHL to qualify. DJSasso (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems to have adequate coverage to meet WP:GNG, e.g.,, , , , . Rlendog (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep (I'm the one who contested the PROD). I contested it because my Internet search and comparison with his peers suggests WP:5P is best served by a less aggressive enforcement of WP:NHOCKEY on the brink of the American Hockey League's new season.  As we all know, the fifth of the five pillars is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules"; given the adequate coverage that already exists, I don't think there should be any urgency to enforcing the letter of the WP:NHOCKEY guideline. 67.101.6.37 (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The one firm standard we have though is notability. A subject must be notable, this is especially true of a biography of a living person. This one is not yet, he fails to meet to the general notability guidelines. -DJSasso (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I appreciate especially Rlendog's links, but they don't add up to substantial, to me. I guess I just have a higher bar for substantial coverage, but I feel as though every town of 10,000 will be able to produce a dozen high school athletes with this level of coverage every year. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt there are many towns of 100,000 that have a high school athlete with a full length profile in a publication that has anything like the prestige of The Hockey News. Or multiple articles in a publication like the Edmonton Journal, for that matter. Rlendog (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The GNG concerns from Djsasso and Hobbes Goodyear needs some clarification. In addition to coverage identified by Rlendog, I found a variety of other possible citations, including the following:, , , , , ,  Notability also gets a very minor bump from his relationship to  Lance Pitlick. 72.244.200.160 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * His relationship to Lance Pitlick doesn't help him. Notability isn't inherited.  Whether or not Tyler Pitlick is notable is based purely on how notable he is, not who he is related to.  As for the articles, the only one that explicitly talks about the subject and would help him meet WP:N is the from the Mankato Free Press.  That Mankato Free Press article is already in Rlendog's list, so it isn't an additional source.  The others are either on-line blogs or only mention him in passing.  Patken4 (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The last ref at least is another chit in the notability column, but really I think Patken4 has it right. For me, the article and the references paint a picture of someone who could well become a notable hockey figure, but is not one yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That pretty much sums it up to me too. Passing mentions of someone who may later be notable. But passing mentions don't equal notability yet. They need to be significant and in depth. And as we all know blogs don't count for notability which is what some of those links are. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete This is a tough one. There is one significant, independent, in-depth source on him (the first one provided by Rlendog), but everything else is routine (including the last one by Rlendog which is a routine, basic overview of a teams picks at the draft), minor local coverage (i.e. the Manakato press) or from blogs.  What's clinched this decision for me is the fact that the Edmonton Journal failed to do any major write up about him in their annual extensive pre-season coverage of the oilers.  I have no doubt that he will eventually merit an article, but now is not the time.  Additionally, as his present article is just the most very basic of articles nothing will be lost in its deletion that cannot be easily salvaged later (with or without an undeletion).  Ravendrop 18:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The difficulty I have with treating the draft article as "routine" is that not all draftee get the level of coverage that Pitlick gets in that article.  Even the article itself demonstrates the dichotomy: Pitlick gets several paragraphs, while the other draftees included just get one line stating their name, position, draft position and current team. Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but he is also the highest draft pick, and (probably) the most likely to reach the NHL or make an impact anytime soon, thus the reporter takes a little more time to dig up a few more lines about him. While it could be argued that it may not meet ROUTINE per se, its definitely not at the in-depth level of the first article you linked.  Ravendrop 18:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. When the coverage in sources is borderline for GNG purposes, we should give due weight to the subject-specific guideline, which in this case would require deletion. That is an entirely permissible approach: the GNG only gives rise to a presumption of notability. In borderline cases, that presumption can be refuted. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:54, 15 October 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.