Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Lucia

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. — Cirt (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Lucia

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

Topic of article has not attained notability standards WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet NHOCKEY or GNG, or even come close. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he passes WP:GNG as demonstrated by the significant and non-routine coverage he has received in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including:
Fox News feature article on Mario Lucia
First Round Bust feature profile on Mario Lucia (January 2011)
McKeens Hockey featured article on Mario Lucia (March 2011)
Dan Swallows featured article on Mario Lucia

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

I think you need to read up on what a reliable source is. Blogs which most of those are, and Q&A interviews are not reliable sources for proving notability. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Fox News story should be fine, although there is less there than meets the eye. The others listed above, I agree with DJSasso, are inadequate. I did find this [1] and this [2] and this [3] (which leads with Lucia, but also discusses other players). There may be just enough to meet GNG here, but for now I am on the fence. Rlendog (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that the Fox News source is significant and reliable, and also the Star Tribune and Hockey News shown by Rlendog which allows this article to pass GNG. Oonissie (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Dolovis (talk) 03:51, 6 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! 02:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the sources turned up by Dlovis and Rlen are enough here to indicate that he meets the WP:GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree, those sources look like enough to push him past WP:GNG. Meelar (talk) 22:47, 7 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.