Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yannick Tifu


 * 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. North America1000 10:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yannick Tifu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Although he fails WP:NHOCKEY, I think he passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  15:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep he is notable Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 16:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The ECHL is not a league that automatically gets its players over WP:NHOCKEY just because they're in it. And of the six sources here, five are press releases from hockey teams themselves, thus primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, and the only one that actually constitutes media coverage is the local newspaper in the town where he currently plays — which means WP:GNG has not been met, because substantive media coverage in multiple reliable sources has not been shown. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * His coverage is not fully reflected in the article. The Reading Eagle article here is not the only article they've done about him, although most of the ones available on Google are pretty minor coverage.  But he has also gotten coverage elsewhere:, , .  And even some articles about his bobblehead .  I still think this is a close call, since much of the coverage directly of Tifu is relatively short.  But he has had a pretty long career, even though most was in the low minors, and there could well be coverage not easily available on Google. Rlendog (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * None of those sources assist: bctv.org and capitalsoutsider are blogs, WFMZ is still a local media outlet covering the town where he currently plays, and the Brossard Eclair is a community weekly newspaper in his own hometown. So none of them help achieve a GNG pass; the only two that count as reliable sources constitute local coverage in exactly the places where a hockey player at this level would be expected to garner coverage, and thus fall under WP:ROUTINE. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that WFMZ is a local media outlet near the town he plays in and that Brossard Eclair is in his hometown (or that the Reading Eagle is in the town he plays in) is irrelevant if they are providing significant coverage of Tifu. Local coverage is not automatically WP:ROUTINE.  If bctv is a blog that may be relevant (although some blogs are reliable sources) but I am not sure it is a blog. Rlendog (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it very much is relevant where the media coverage is coming from. Local media outlets would be expected to offer coverage of their local junior hockey team, or of the early accomplishments of emerging but not-there-yet local talents — but if a person doesn't actually satisfy a specific Wikipedia inclusion criterion, then to get over WP:GNG on "because the media coverage exists" grounds the coverage does have to expand significantly beyond the bounds of the purely local. Exclusively local coverage can't be enough in and of itself to get someone into an encyclopedia, because then we'd have to start keeping articles about fry stand operators and PTA presidents and disabled kids who got introduced to their favourite football player by the Make a Wish Foundation and small-town fire chiefs — many of whom are the subject of at least as much, if not even more, purely local coverage as has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting interpretation of WP:GNG. But not what's actually in the guideline. While local media would be expected to cover the local teams, they do not necessarily provide specific coverage of everyone who plays for the team. Rlendog (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually that is a standard interpretation of it. It is the reason why not every local politician gets an article for example. That is why we usually ask for articles from outlets not just in a local players town otherwise we consider it WP:ROUTINE. Otherwise highschool athletes start meeting WP:GNG in cities where there are multiple news outlets that do fluff pieces on local athletes. From the top of that page "Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And thinking about it, I remembered that Notability (sports) even says for highschool aged athletes that local papers are not good enough. -DJSasso (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - per TonytheTiger and Rlendog.-- Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 13:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete While there is one source that shows some coverage, I cannot find enough to meet the "multiple" requirement. Most of what is on the page doesn't go to show notability. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 1 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.