Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Pinto

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. Missvain (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Pinto

Shane Pinto (edit | 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now he passes
  WP:NORUSH Lightburst (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:TOOSOON when it comes to subjects not gaining significant coverage but might one day. Ice hockey specifically has had problems with this in the past for thousands of articles like this getting created, never meeting GNG, and then being forgotten and never updated. It has taken years to clean the mess, so the hockey project may be less forgiving towards ANYBIO (which is specifically vague on the presumption of sources). Only GNG is sufficient here. Yosemiter (talk)02:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete He does not meet the actual inclusion criteria for hockey notability. He may be on his way, but we wait until people are notable to create articles. Well, we are supposed to. We actually do not, which is why we have so many articles on people who never made it past an NFL pratice squad up for deletion. This is why we need to force all articles through AfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My question is if he never accomplishes anything else will the awards i mentioned confer notability? Lightburst (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. NHOCKEY does not confer presumptive notability to "all-rookie" teams at any level of play, nor to players in World U18 competition, gold-medal or otherwise. (Many such might meet the GNG, which of course is a different thing.) Make mine Delete. Ravenswing 02:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This seems a little harsh for a guy who missed NHOCKEY inclusion by ONE draft position, and has been covered in some depth by the Guardian and the Athletic. I don't know enough about those two publications to know whether they are local coverage or not though.
  18abruce (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If he has an in depth article in the Guardian on top of the Athletic article and the Hockey Writers article I think he would pass GNG and then NHOCKEY would be moot. But the Guardian article I am finding is this, and I think I would want a little more before saying definitively that he passes GNG (although it at least brings him to borderline GNG pass). Rlendog (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pinto is one of the top scorers for the current #1 ranked NCAA hockey program, North Dakota. And he was the #1 Center for the 2020 World Juniors USA team. That was enough to make me want to look him up on Wikipedia. Also he had a recent mention in the Athletic which is impressive: theathletic.com The Comic Book Guy 18:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Being mentioned in a list of prospects on The Athletic is very common. Here is a similar list of the first 107 picks of 2019. Every team has had about one paragraph written about every pick (eg Tampa Bay's picks go all the way to the 198th overall, Nashville's picks go to 210th, etc). If you go team-by-team on a dedicated sports website you'll find a roughly boilerplate paragraph on every player drafted, and the vast majority of them don't pan out.Citing (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Scouting reports for draft picks are extremely common through every round of the NHL draft (basically every player will have a paragraph written here or there regardless of notability) and the ones presented here are no exception . It's very possible he will make it to the pro leagues and meet the criteria of
  WP:NHOCKEY... but it's also very possible he won't and at the moment we're speculating.Citing (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per the sources from Comic Book Guy. Fails NHOCKEY but passes GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has enough coverage to satisfy GNG, including lots of stories about him in the Grand Forks Herald (this and this are just 2 of many examples), plus The Hockey News, The Athletic, three paragraphs about him here, and several pieces (though none great by themselves) in the Ottawa Sun. Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets
  WP:NHOCKEY #5. The guy drafted ONE spot ahead of him is auto-notable, and would get unanimous "Keep" votes if sent to AfD, but he isn't? Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @Ejgreen77: Yes, #5 is a bit arbitrary. But where should the arbitrary line be? Certainly not every second round draft pick meets GNG, something like 60-70% ever play in the NHL. Almost all first round picks get coverage after the fact, mainly due to being the team's top selection (if it was their first pick anyways). No NSPORTS SNG is perfect, but that is why they are written to meet GNG, and the first round is easier to define then "first round draft pick if it was the team's first pick of the draft and then the top couple of spots in the second round..." IMO, this is one of those borderline notables. They have a few decent sources as a prospect, but they are limited to just that: his amateur career. I have no strong opinion on keep or delete at this time. Yosemiter (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2020 (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.