Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Trocheck

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Trocheck

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic of article has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Playing in top prospects game is not a major award. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --Ozgod (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He passes WP:GNG as demonstrated by the significant coverage he has received in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including:
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette feature article
Dan Swallow's feature article

The published feature stories (non-routine coverage) about this player pushes this article over the GNG threshold required for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Q&A on a blog is not even remotely a reliable source. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette source is significant and reliable, so this article does pass GNG. Oonissie (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette source is significant and reliable, but it takes more than significant coverage in one reliable source to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here [1] is yet another significant and reliable feature on Vincent Trocheck. Dolovis (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment - The NHL article is routine, they've done it for most prospects. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. With the 2 supersources presented, it appears that he just squeaks by GNG. However, another source or 2 would be nice. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this and this qualify as reliable non-routine, non-trivial coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment - I disagree. The NHL article is routine, they've done it for most prospects. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--there are now some good sources in the article. Meelar (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I disagree. There are no articles cited that are on the subject of the article specifically. If there are any, add them to the article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I am still unsure there is enough coverage here, this comment confuses me. Both the reliable sources discussed here are completely about Trocheck. I can't find much in these sources that is not specifically on the subject of the article. Rlendog (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was disagreeing with the statement directly above mine, the one from Meelar. You are supposed to create an article with valid references, not just create the article with nothing. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see. It looks like someone added the references to the article, for whatever it's worth. Rlendog (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.