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. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Shewchuk (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)

Seemingly non-notable athlete. Unable to find more than trivial coverage in sources. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Professional lacrosse players are not seemingly as "notable" as pro hockey or baseball players, but NLL fans over the past 8 years know his name. He's no superstar but Shewchuk has had a solid 8-year career in the National Lacrosse League. There are many pages for lacrosse players that haven't played as long. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 22:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basic notability requirements are the same for every BLP article, regardless of how "popular" their sport is. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF with regard to your comment about the other lacrosse players (these articles might themselves get deleted in the future as well if they fail WP:N). Primefac (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's certainly possible that he has enough notability to qualify for a Wikipedia article — but this article, as written, isn't demonstrating that. Nobody — not an athlete, not a politician, not a musician, not a writer, not anybody at all in any field of endeavour — gets to keep an unsourced or primary sourced article on Wikipedia just because they exist; what gets a person into Wikipedia is the ability to cite reliable source coverage which verifies that they pass one or more of our inclusion criteria. But with only a single deadlinked press release on the website of the league he plays in for "referencing", that hasn't been demonstrated at all. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a good version, citing real sources, can be written — but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then wouldn't this be a good place for a "Template:Refimprove", and then a delete if the articles was not improved? In the meantime, I will rewrite the article and add some references. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 03:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI I have updated the article to include more information and statistics as well as references. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 23:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although this is a bit of a borderline case. This is a professional lacrosse player who has received some recognition, such as the Rookie of the Week Award, and a search turned up a few results (albeit somewhat shaky). I'm not completely convinced that it should be deleted, though. I'd also settle for a redirect to the team itself. --Biblioworm 05:57, 17 January 2015 (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.