Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ice hockey

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gene93k (talk | contribs) at 12:12, 26 October 2008 (Listing Drayson Bowman). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Hockey. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Ice hockey|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Hockey. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Hockey

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--Tone 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drayson Bowman

Drayson Bowman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable junior hockey player. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE.There is a long established precedence that major junior hockey players are not notable. Smashvilletalk 04:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's faulty logic. The prince is notable for being a prince. Bowman doesn't have coverage for anything outside of being a juniors player. The coverage of the juniors player is based on game results for his being a juniors player, not for something outside of playing hockey. --Smashvilletalk 21:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides which, the "seems to have received" construction is unacceptable. Either he has received, as WP:BIO requires, "significant coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail" or he has not. So far, no evidence has been proffered that this is the case, and simple "Bowman scored a third period goal" references in articles also mentioning several other players are just the kind of trivial mentions disallowed by WP:BIO. Delete.  Ravenswing  13:36, 27 October 2008 (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.
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. The last comment casts doubt on the "keep" opinions.  Sandstein  20:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westfort Rangers

Westfort Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violation of notability requirements. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there are articles from multiple independent reliable sources that are primarily about the topic, then yes, by definition it's notable. IAR is a real option here. But to answer your question, yes those three articles meet the letter of GNG quite nicely. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be very interested in learning how declaring every little league baseball team, every peewee, atom and tyke hockey team, every youth league basketball team, etc. notable improves the quality of this encyclopedia. Resolute 14:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Twas Now. This is a children's community team. Never mind the fact that this is basically a speedy deletion candidate for not even attempting to assert notability. Resolute 21:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seriously? It's a kids hockey team...Little League baseball teams are not notable and peewee hockey teams are not notable. Given the nature of such teams, they probably won't even exist once the season is over...Having results printed in the local paper is not evidence of notability. Lots of local papers in small towns print stories about rec league teams...--Smashvilletalk 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per notability guidelines, this is presumed notable. The above !votes are largely cases of IDONTLIKEIT or "Not notable" !votes and should be largely discounted by the closer. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: One could just as readily discount yours for being completely vague as to what notability guidelines this team meets and why? For my part, I'll stand by WP:ORG's guidelines, which hold that "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." For pity's sake, are you genuinely advocating that a twelve year old youth hockey team is notable because the local paper has a weekly article about the peewee leagues, and every now and then this crew's number comes up?  RGTraynor  13:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first part of WP:ORG reads: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. " Your point about audience target is well made, but I will point out that our most recent survey indicated that people felt that you don't need to meet both the GNG and the SNG. I don't see anything in the GNG about local sources. As I mentioned above, I've no problems with merging this article into an article on the league or even something larger. But as far as I can tell, this meets the letter and intent of the GNG. As far as what part of the guidelines this meets, the articles establish significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. I think my argument is pretty plain and not a case of "ILIKEIT" or "plainly notable". Hobit (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a pretty clear case where common sense should be used. Instead of throwing around blue links, just use your head: little league sports teams are not notable. This team isn't even a top tier peewee team (which still wouldn't be notable)...it's a team in the second tier of a 3 tier system in a league in a town of a 100,000 people. --Smashvilletalk 14:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point if we were trying to meet the dictionary definition of notable (famous etc.). But that's NOT what notable means here. "Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." (from WP:N). We live on sources. IAR is of course an option here. But if you want notability to have to do with "fame," "importance," or "popularity," you should take it up at WP:N, not here. Hobit (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, it is not notable. It does not meet notability guidelines. You have provided no evidence of notability other than passing mentions on results pages of a local paper. Those are not "significant coverage". The fact that the team exists does not make it notable. It is a rec league team for 11-12 year olds...it's not even the highest division. Quoting the guideline doesn't make it notable. You haven't shown how it actually meets WP:ORG. --Smashvilletalk 17:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number one, I claim that the GNG is all that needs to be met. As linked to above, that seems to have consensus. Number two, calling these passing mentions is a pretty rough argument as two of the articles are largely about the team and one is significantly about the team. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember, we are debating if the topic meets the requirements for inclusion, not the article. I understand your frustration, I often come at it from the other end. People argue that some major topic doesn't warrant an article because of a lack of RS (even if there are 100 (litterally) primary sources on the topic and was on the NYT bestseller list) and that it is RS, not "fame" we are looking for. But that isn't want we've chosen to do (and I largely think rightly). Rather, if multiple independent sources cover it, we cover it. If they don't, we don't. WP:ORG has good arguments that the sources aren't enough, but this idea of "local sources" only exists there as far as I can tell. Not in the GNG or any other SNG... Hobit (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll be done here at this point. Let me summarize my arguments. I believe that there are 3 non-trivial, reliable, independent sources on the topic. I believe that it thus meets GNG, though WP:ORG might not be met as "local" sources are considered less relevant under its guidance. I believe that meeting the GNG, but not the SNG is still a reason for inclusion per the survey presented in the WP:N talk page and general consensus about notability. And I think arguments about it being "just" a 11-12 year old league aren't relevant per the GNG's comments on fame, importance and popularity. Arguments that the sources are trivial are of course on-point, though I don't see how that can be true when the article is long and mainly about the team in question (in 2 of the 3 cases). I also think IAR might be a valid plan here, but if we are going to claim that stuff like this is generally not notable (and not just this case) then someone should go back to the GNG and address the idea of "local" or whatever reason they have for thinking that this kind of topic doesn't belong here. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, how can it meet notability guidlines when it doesn't even meet A7? Also, the team is the subject of zero of the three articles provided. The article has one sentence - "The Westfort Rangers are a Thunder Bay-based hockey team." - and none of the sources are even able to support that. Were they a team at one point? Yes...Are they a team now? What kind of team are they? One article refers to their results as the results of a peewee team, but another says the kids are 6-7... --Smashvilletalk 18:38, 27 October 2008 (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.
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 per WP:SNOW. J.delanoygabsadds 00:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Gaulton

Mitchell Gaulton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable junior league hockey player; fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:HOCKEY's project notability guidelines as not only not having played in a "fully professional" league, his odds of doing so aren't good. Article erroneously asserts that he plays for the New York Rangers, when in fact he's an oft-injured reserve defenseman who has yet to play for his junior team this season. Prod removed by article creator without comment.  RGTraynor  04:08, 20 October 2008 (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.
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 per WP:SNOW, but especially per this. J.delanoygabsadds 00:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Pelkey

Joe Pelkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non existant person.

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.
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 redirect to Goal (ice hockey). Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage goal

Garbage goal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable dictionary definition. Fails WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF, not to mention the fact that it is unreferenced. I watch a lot of hockey and have never heard of this term. Tavix (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Ice_hockey&oldid=247758937"