Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Roy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete - Did consider the merge option however, nothing in the article is really sourced. -Djsasso (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Roy

Jonathan Roy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Questionable notability, not a professional player. Also, possible recentism. Flibirigit (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the definition of a professional hockey player? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
From my understanding, a professional player plays in a league where players are "of age", and earn a salary they can live off of. An amateur player does not receive (or receives very little) a salary. A very informal definition. Schmloof (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
We've been down this path many MANY times: major junior is not professional. Don't bother. ccwaters (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Notability isn't inherited. He's the backup goalie on the junior team his Dad coaches and manages. That's all. We'll forget about him in a month, after the media moves on to other stories. ccwaters (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DMighton (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: This player's actions have sparked a criminal investigation as well as action from the Quebec provincial government. While it is agreed that Johnathan Roy is not a professional ice hockey player, his actions have sparked significant outside media attention with a number of news outlets in the United States picking up on the event. Certainly notable. VanceBaker (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into any or all of 2007-08 QMJHL season, Violence in ice hockey or Fighting in ice hockey per WP:BIO1E. The incident has recieved a fantastic amount of attention, but Roy's mention is entirely within the context of this incident, as the state of this article clearly shows. Resolute 18:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Flibirigit (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to the season's article, the Remparts article, Patrick's article and other related articles, although the extensive media coverage boost its notability level quite a bit in Canada and even more in Quebec. It will be even further notable if there will be criminal charges.--JForget 19:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Notability and Newsworthy are very different things. -Djsasso (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • delete WP:NOT#NEWS, primarily in the news due to being related to Patrick Roy and this BLP1E. I don't see anyone running to write up a bio for Sébastien Rioux (and nor should they), because ... WP:NOT#NEWS. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Being Patrick Roy's son has nothing to do with it. He committed an assault during a junior hockey game, causing a nation to debate how much violence should be tolerated in hockey. This incident would have caused a firestorm no matter whose son he was. DOSGuy (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. He hasn't won a major award in juniors, he wasn't picked in the first round of the NHL draft. Patken4 (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge per Resolute or Djsasso. Lesserm (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable into the violence in hockey and season articles listed above. I agree that this guy isn't notable enough yet for his own article, even if his case makes an impact on the issue. If kept the article needs to be policed for WP:BLP issues. I don't support keeping a redirect for this as that may violate BLP, especially if the redirect leads to something that might be seen as prejudicial in a legal case. If anyone is looking for his name in the Wikipedia seach engine, it would turn up under the applicable article anyway, so no redirect is needed. 23skidoo (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I live in Canada, and I can tell you that Jonathan Roy has sparked a national dialogue. His attack on Bobby Nadeau was probably shown on every newscast in the country, and has led Quebec Premier Jean Charest to suggest that he may change the law to prevent fighting in Junior Hockey. This young man is a household name in a country of 32 million people. How much more notable does he need to be? Beyond simply being the most notable person of the moment, he's likely to remain notable in the future, since he will likely play in the NHL or AHL someday. There will also be the enduring legacy of any changes to the legal code of Quebec, and to the rules of CHL hockey. In the unlikely event that those changes don't materialize, the debate will rage on. Jonathan Roy is infamous, i.e. notable for all the wrong reasons. DOSGuy (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
4 other player got suspended because of that incident, but they're being ignored because their last names are not Roy. And YOUR speculation that he may play in the AHL or NHL isn't a valid reason (Offhand, I highly doubt that a 19 year old undrafted backup goaltender on his Dad's own team is going to have much of a pro career to write about anyway). ccwaters (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly my point. None of the other players made the news because all of them consented to fight. Jonathan Roy was singled out because he attacked a player who didn't want to fight. It was an assault, which is why it's being investigated by the police. Had it been a fight, it wouldn't have been such big news. The seriousness of his actions are why he was singled out.
As far as his future career, I wasn't attempting to use a crystal ball argument for future notability. My point was that this is a story that isn't going to go away. Of course it's not a valid reason on its own! It's a supporting factor, not a justification. DOSGuy (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:BIO1E. The notability here is in the incident, not the person. The incident itself certainly has notability, and there are many articles that already exist where it can be described. Jonathon Roy as an individual has no notability beyond the incident. As such, he does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Resolute 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
And then we go back to: WP:BIO1E. About a month ago, the was a huge brawl in Div I NCAA that included a Canisius player pinning an RIT player on his stomach and repeatingly smashing his face into the ice [1], (search youtube for vids). That was equally if not more brutal then Roy's actions, but the guys father wasn't a record holding hall of famer so there was no national spotlight. (oh... and GO RIT!) ccwaters (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete If NOT NEWS means anything, it means events like this; and if the one event part of BLP means anything, it means this also. Notable for one discreditable event. The article is furthermore written drawing a conclusion of the nature of his actions on the ice, without giving a source.DGG (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Newsworthy for now, but not notable per established criteria for this WikiProject and per WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the merge

Here's a couple concerns I have:

  1. The current Jonathan Roy article itself has no provide sources at all.
  2. Once sources are found it can be easily added into 2007-08 QMJHL season and Fighting_in_ice_hockey#Notable_fights_and_brawls.
    1. Smaller mentions could then be made in the Québec Remparts and Chicoutimi Saguenéens articles.
  3. In order to fit into the Violence in ice hockey article, charges would need to be laid.

Although I don't dispute the factuality of the content in the Jonathan Roy article, there's not much can really do with the merging content, until its sourced. Flibirigit (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2008 (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.