- 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. After 2 relists and no clear/determinable consensus, this defaults to keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 23:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
J. D. Watt
- J. D. Watt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai ( talk) 03:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I would agree that the subject is not notable per NHOCKEY, but I feel there is enough coverage in major (reliable) news sources to let him barely scrape in under GNG. The fact that the article is well-written helps too. Ajraddatz ( talk) 06:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: NN (retired) undistinguished minor-leaguer, fails NHOCKEY. I'd also argue that there's no evidence he passes the GNG; other than that one longish piece in the Calgary Sun, everything in the article is a broken link, or from primary sources or routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Ravenswing. Deadman137 ( talk) 18:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG. Article has several independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage.-- Michiquito ( talk) 02:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Michiquito: @ Ajraddatz: which sources make him pass GNG? Joeykai ( talk) 02:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Reply: Only one of the Sun articles is of a length to be considered "significant coverage," but since the GNG requires multiple sources, the Sun could run fifty such articles and he still wouldn't pass the GNG on that count alone. Do you have other sources known to be reliable that constitute "significant coverage?" Ravenswing 06:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- The guideline recommends coverage in multiple sources. There is at least one, maybe two, sources in which he is the primary subject (which is what the guideline references when looking at significant coverage), and these are supported by a whole bunch of non-reliable sources which nonetheless still offer useful information which is used in the article. To me, this article is well written and well enough referenced to continue to exist. I'm not particularly concerned if you feel different, nor if the article is deleted in the end.
Ajraddatz (
talk) 06:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see how a non-reliable source does anything for any subject's notability. That said, I can see multiple instances of minor coverage in a reliable source adding up to substantial coverage, if they really add up to something significant in total. But all I see here that I would be willing to count for anything in addition to the Sun is the Hockey Future article, because although an interview with the subject and thus largely a primary source, the website still made the editorial decision to interview Watt and run the article. So I can see giving partial credit for that. But at best that still adds up to 1 1/2 sources, and I would look for 2 as a bare minimum to even consider meeting "multiple sources."
Rlendog (
talk) 22:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to argue that non-reliable sources somehow make the article notable. I'm saying that what it has in reliable sources is good enough for me. The subject seems to be an accomplished former minor-league hockey player. The article isn't just written from a promotional standpoint, and I see very little reason to remove the page considering it has at least some baseline (of course weak) in reliable sources and is well written. From the top of WP:GNG: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense" - my common sense tells me that there is no reason to delete this article. I understand if people feel differently, and as I say I'm not going to make any fuss if it is deleted. The fact that it uses non-reliable sources contributes to the information present on the page, but of course does not grant it notability in any way. Ajraddatz ( talk) 00:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see how a non-reliable source does anything for any subject's notability. That said, I can see multiple instances of minor coverage in a reliable source adding up to substantial coverage, if they really add up to something significant in total. But all I see here that I would be willing to count for anything in addition to the Sun is the Hockey Future article, because although an interview with the subject and thus largely a primary source, the website still made the editorial decision to interview Watt and run the article. So I can see giving partial credit for that. But at best that still adds up to 1 1/2 sources, and I would look for 2 as a bare minimum to even consider meeting "multiple sources."
Rlendog (
talk) 22:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and Draft only if needed instead as this could be acceptable but it's still questionable so this can be put aside from, away from mainspace, until better acceptable if ever. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- I normally have no objection to userfying in the case of NN players, but in this fellow's case, he's retired from hockey. Anything to be known about him has been, and it's extremely unlikely that fresh qualifying sources will emerge at this date. Ravenswing 23:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 ( talk) 10:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 ( talk) 10:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 ( talk) 10:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I am not seeing enough to meet WP:GNG and since he also doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY it doesn't look likely that he can. - DJSasso ( talk) 11:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep A short, journeyman career; but sufficient independent coverage to pass WP:GNG, despite failing WP:NHOCKEY. X4n6 ( talk) 08:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:42, 1 May 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.
- 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. After 2 relists and no clear/determinable consensus, this defaults to keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 23:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
J. D. Watt
- J. D. Watt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai ( talk) 03:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I would agree that the subject is not notable per NHOCKEY, but I feel there is enough coverage in major (reliable) news sources to let him barely scrape in under GNG. The fact that the article is well-written helps too. Ajraddatz ( talk) 06:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: NN (retired) undistinguished minor-leaguer, fails NHOCKEY. I'd also argue that there's no evidence he passes the GNG; other than that one longish piece in the Calgary Sun, everything in the article is a broken link, or from primary sources or routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Ravenswing. Deadman137 ( talk) 18:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG. Article has several independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage.-- Michiquito ( talk) 02:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Michiquito: @ Ajraddatz: which sources make him pass GNG? Joeykai ( talk) 02:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Reply: Only one of the Sun articles is of a length to be considered "significant coverage," but since the GNG requires multiple sources, the Sun could run fifty such articles and he still wouldn't pass the GNG on that count alone. Do you have other sources known to be reliable that constitute "significant coverage?" Ravenswing 06:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- The guideline recommends coverage in multiple sources. There is at least one, maybe two, sources in which he is the primary subject (which is what the guideline references when looking at significant coverage), and these are supported by a whole bunch of non-reliable sources which nonetheless still offer useful information which is used in the article. To me, this article is well written and well enough referenced to continue to exist. I'm not particularly concerned if you feel different, nor if the article is deleted in the end.
Ajraddatz (
talk) 06:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see how a non-reliable source does anything for any subject's notability. That said, I can see multiple instances of minor coverage in a reliable source adding up to substantial coverage, if they really add up to something significant in total. But all I see here that I would be willing to count for anything in addition to the Sun is the Hockey Future article, because although an interview with the subject and thus largely a primary source, the website still made the editorial decision to interview Watt and run the article. So I can see giving partial credit for that. But at best that still adds up to 1 1/2 sources, and I would look for 2 as a bare minimum to even consider meeting "multiple sources."
Rlendog (
talk) 22:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to argue that non-reliable sources somehow make the article notable. I'm saying that what it has in reliable sources is good enough for me. The subject seems to be an accomplished former minor-league hockey player. The article isn't just written from a promotional standpoint, and I see very little reason to remove the page considering it has at least some baseline (of course weak) in reliable sources and is well written. From the top of WP:GNG: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense" - my common sense tells me that there is no reason to delete this article. I understand if people feel differently, and as I say I'm not going to make any fuss if it is deleted. The fact that it uses non-reliable sources contributes to the information present on the page, but of course does not grant it notability in any way. Ajraddatz ( talk) 00:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see how a non-reliable source does anything for any subject's notability. That said, I can see multiple instances of minor coverage in a reliable source adding up to substantial coverage, if they really add up to something significant in total. But all I see here that I would be willing to count for anything in addition to the Sun is the Hockey Future article, because although an interview with the subject and thus largely a primary source, the website still made the editorial decision to interview Watt and run the article. So I can see giving partial credit for that. But at best that still adds up to 1 1/2 sources, and I would look for 2 as a bare minimum to even consider meeting "multiple sources."
Rlendog (
talk) 22:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and Draft only if needed instead as this could be acceptable but it's still questionable so this can be put aside from, away from mainspace, until better acceptable if ever. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- I normally have no objection to userfying in the case of NN players, but in this fellow's case, he's retired from hockey. Anything to be known about him has been, and it's extremely unlikely that fresh qualifying sources will emerge at this date. Ravenswing 23:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 ( talk) 10:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 ( talk) 10:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 ( talk) 10:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I am not seeing enough to meet WP:GNG and since he also doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY it doesn't look likely that he can. - DJSasso ( talk) 11:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep A short, journeyman career; but sufficient independent coverage to pass WP:GNG, despite failing WP:NHOCKEY. X4n6 ( talk) 08:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:42, 1 May 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.