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The result was nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Janus[edit]

Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Contested Prod claiming Wikipedia:GNG however player's only claim to potential notability is as a hockey player, so he would need to meet WP:Athlete. Not too sure making the World Junior Championship Tournament All Star team is a notable enough honor to establish his current notability. Pparazorback (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.
Comment I am usually all for deleting these junior players but I think being named to the WJC All-Star team would qualify as having earned pre-eminent honours per the hockey projects guidelines. As for GNG, the problem is that the objector didn't link to any actual RSes about the subject per WP:RS the articles actually have to be about the actual subject and not just trivial mentions as most of the links on the first page of the search he linked to on google in his edit summary, in fact looking closer almost all of them are just stat sheets. -Djsasso (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment which of course is why I posed the question if the project believes that all players who have made the WJC tournament all-star team should now be considered notable. If so, then this player would be notable as would any other junior player who also were named to the same would now be notable. -Pparazorback (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that is only 5 people per year. All the other individual awards at the WJC are usually considered good enough. So I would think this one is as well. But I will let others comment, I will stay undecided for now. -Djsasso (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think our criteria already allow players who achieved pre-eminent honors, with making a first team all-star appearance being one of them. While they might be more for regular season play, major tournaments (like the WJC or Memorial Cup) should also satisfy it. Patken4 (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - not meeting ATHLETE is not an automatic disqualifier and this particular player has been covered extensively, being mentioned in nearly 500 Google news stories ([1]). Many of these stories will of course be routine game coverage, however they won't all be. Subject was recently drafted into the NHL and is likely to play a pro game at some point (not guaranteed, of course, but likely). Even if he never plays in the NHL, he is notable for being quite accomplished at the amateur level, as noted above. Most amateur players are non-notable, but this is clearly one of those exceptions that fall in the ~1-2% who are notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please by all means come up with even one article about the subject that isn't just routine game coverage or roster coverage or a passing mention. I actually went through about 200 links and there wasn't a single one. I agree there probably is one somewhere, but to say he has been covered extensively would be a misnomer. Being drafted in the 6th round as a goalie is almost a guarantee that he will never play in the NHL. As for being quite accomplished at the amateur level he only has 2 years under his belt so I wouldn't go as far as to say he was quite accomplished or he would have been drafted much sooner than 135th. His only saving grace is doing really well in a single tournament which may or may not fall under WP:BLP1E. -Djsasso (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It certain wouldn't fall under BLP1E as that guideline is intended to protect people who accidentally become "famous" as part of some news story, not for people who are trying to be notable. But since you asked, here are two pretty extensive articles about him specifically: [2][3] --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E is also meant for someone whose popularity comes from a flurry of news articles based around one event (ie such as being drafted). Ok so you have one verifiable source. You are on your way to meeting the requirement of having multiple ones. (Not sure about the second one that was added after an edit conflict, it looks like a blog and not sure how reliable it is.)-Djsasso (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is a 3rd for good measure. Also, we are talking about at least 2 events: WJC all-star & being drafted, so there is no point debating whether BLP1E should apply to an athlete known for one event or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But still, most of these articles are more about him being drafted and that he played one game that made him kind of a hero in Slovakia. Hundreds of players still get drafted each year that never play in a fully professional league. Maybe the All Star team in the WJC makes him notable, and if it does, then it should be kept. Thus, the project needs to discuss this. However, if it does not, then 'the flavor of the month' so to speak may not be on anyone's radar down the roadif he does not achieve any pre-eminent honors or play professionally. He won't be notable. If his only claim to notability is because he is an athlete, the standard of measurement for that notability should be taken from the standards of being an athlete. As a hockey player, he should meet these standards. -Pparazorback (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say Keep on the basis of his making the WJC All-Star team. The discussion about whether that fact makes someone notable has been here for a few days, but there hasn't been really any disagreement with what DjSasso or myself said. If a discussion about the merits of the arguments needs to take place, then I think this AfD should be closed while that discussion takes place. As a side note, his Slovak language article does have some more articles. Some of these look to be basic biographical and statistic articles, but one of the articles talks about his All-Star team appearance. There might be more information out there from Slovakia. Patken4 (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I will withdraw this nomination so that the project can discuss if the WJC All star team qualifies as a pre-eminate that satisfies our notability standards. If that discussion decides that it does not, then this article may be nominated once again. -Pparazorback (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2009 (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.