Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Woolf (ice hockey b. 1970)

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Woolf (ice hockey b. 1970)

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

Non-notable athlete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. He has never competed at the fully professional level of a sport. Only reference found is to a non-reliable stats site for hockey. The leagues that he has played in (both for hockey and lacrosse) are low level minor leagues. 23 games in the AHL minor leagues doesn’t cut it, and all the other leagues he has played in are of even a lower level Pooet (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First off the reference has been declared a reliable source at FAC numerous times. Secondly they played in the highest level professional roller hockey league Roller Hockey International which meets WP:ATHLETE. Secondly they played in a number of hockey leagues that are fully professional (aka not semi-pro). He has also played for three top level national league in Europe which also meets WP:ATHLETE. There currently is no number of games requirement in WP:ATHLETE. All it takes is a single game to meet it. -DJSasso (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the article's creator you may be too close to the subject to be objective. Roller Hockey International is not the the highest level professional roller hockey league. It is a low level minor league that plays at a level well below that of the National Lacrosse League. It may be true that it only takes one hockey game played in a the Major Leagues (read NHL, WHA or KHL), Olympics or World Cup, but this player falls well short of that standard. The highest league he ever played in was the AHL, and that was for only 23 games over three years! Certainly that does not qualify as playing at a fully professional level. This person fails WP:Athlete and unless you can show he meets WP:GNP the article should be deleted. Pooet (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you actually knew the sport you were talking about. Roller Hockey is not Lacrosse they are two completely different sports. Secondly WP:ATHLETE does not require it to be the top level league. Only that the league is fully-professional and not semi-pro. (ie they are all paid). It makes no distinction between major leagues or minor leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and not only did he play in the highest level professional roller hockey league, but he was also named to the All-Star team. This really is a slam dunk case of meeting WP:ATHLETE. -DJSasso (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And oh look he also represented Team Canada at the IIHF InLine Hockey World Championship and was captain of the team. Did you even try to look for sources for this player before putting it up for AFD like is required by WP:GD? -DJSasso (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DJSasso. Played in AHL and RHI... full pro... notable enough it seems to me. DMighton (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. National team gets it done as far as I'm concerned. The IIHF is a major governing body on the world stage, it's not just some minor tournament where club teams play in and pass themselves off as a national team from their home country.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he's played at the highest level of roller hockey competition, he meets WP:ATHLETE, regardless of whether he's not as successful on the ice. Mandsford (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will reverse my nomination for deletion if anyone can supply a reliable 3rd party reference to show that "Roller Hockey International" or MLRH competed at the highest level of its sport. Pooet (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the articles on either of those leagues? That is sort of like asking someone to proove the NHL is the top level league. You are just getting a bit pointy at this point. Not sources because I don't think I need to waste the time looking for some since he already meets the amateur part of ATH. But from the RHI article "Roller Hockey International was a professional inline hockey league that operated in North America from 1993 to 1999. It was the first major professional league for inline hockey." and "It is a North American professional sport, and is represented by the Professional Inline Hockey Association and Major League Roller Hockey at the highest level." from the roller hockey article. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is nothing like asking a person to prove that the NHL is a top level league. A person could easily find hundreds of 3rd party references to support that the NHL is a top level league, but the same is not true for either of the roller hockey leagues. Just like you, all I can find are self-promoting statements about the leagues, and even those make it sound like a bush-league sport. If he is not notable under the general notability guidelines, then he should not be here. Pooet (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the hockey news covered the league in great detail at one point (especially during the strike), there may be additional details in sources from that period. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Games were also nationally televised. This wasn't some backwater league. It was a stumbling first attempt at a professional roller hockey league. Either way, he meets WP:ATHLETE through playing professionally in two sports and through playering in the World Championships in one. There really isn't much to argue about unless Pooet is just trying to make a point. -DJSasso (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Professional player for the Boston Bruins. Come on. Arskwad (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He was drafted by the Bruins, but never made it to the NHL, so he could not be officially classified as a Professional Player for the Bruins. -Pparazorback (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the requirements of WP:ATHLETE as to the fact that he has played a fully professional league - primarily the ECHL and AHL. Subject probably is notable as well for his Roller Hockey career as well but I do not know much about that sport. However, WP:ATHLETE requirements are satisfied with his ECHL and AHL experience as both are fully professional. -Pparazorback (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Me thinks that it will soon start to SNOW around here... -Pparazorback (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, he has played in a fully professional league. AHL and ECHL are both fully professional. I see no valid reason for deletion. Patken4 (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So now the new standard for presummed notability is one game played in either the AHL or ECHL? With such a low standard you can now start to create thousands of new, one line, articles. Its a great day to be a hockey fan! Pooet (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though fully professional, the AHL and the ECHL are minor leagues and not inherently notable (and never will be). Generally, the WP:ATHLETE policy is further refined by the fans of the different sports leagues, who have the knowledge to separate the major leagues (players inherently notable) from minor leagues (some given inherent notability if they made a special achievement within the minor league. The only reason Woolf gets a bye is because, to the extent that, in the world of professional roller skates hockey, he played for one of its "major leagues". Mandsford (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the hockey standard is five years and 100 games in a fully professional league, even if it is a "minor league". Woolf easily passes that. Patken4 (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, a player credited with at least 1 game in the AHL or ECHL would make him notable as they are fully professional leagues. The guideline on the hockey standard recommends that no one create an article on those such players until they get to the 100 game / 5 year mark, however, WP:ATHLETE is technically satisfied by the first game played by that player. -Pparazorback (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One game in the American Hockey League as inherently notable? Sorry, I doubt that any ice hockey fan would go along with that. The AHL and the ECHL are nowhere close to being equal in quality to the NHL, so they wouldn't be afforded equal treatment when it comes to inherent notability, which is a good thing. Wikipedia gets criticized, and rightfully so, for being top-heavy on sports and TV articles. Being a brain surgeon isn't necessarily notable on Wikipedia, unless, of course, the brain surgeon happened to be a jock as well. Mandsford (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For better or for worse, both those leagues are fully professional, and it would satisfy WP:ATHLETE regardless based on how I read it. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think he is just objecting to WP:ATH as a number of people do, but Pparazorback is correct, at the moment it is taken to mean that any player who plays in a league where everyone is paid meets it. Either way its not really relevant at this point because this particular player meets ATH for other reasons as well. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you found the interpretation used by the hockey fans. It would probably help if WP:ATHLETE had links to how each sport sets the boundaries for inherent notability. At first glance, five years and 100 games without ever playing a big league game is certainly more inclusive than most sports get. On the other hand, then NHL operated with only six teams until 1967, compared to 30 now. Hence, it's not unreasonable to afford some notability to persons who, historically, spent their time in the American Hockey League. Mandsford (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NSPORT which is being developed for just that reason. -DJSasso (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Appears like a snow issue here. Inline hockey being the reason he satisfies ATHLETE. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep notability established, now brush up the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a pretty obvious keep, as the snow would suggest. Player has played at the highest level of roller hockey (both professionally and in international competition) and played in a fully professional ice hockey league. I think the fact that the nominator is having a hard time distinguishing the sports played in the National Lacrosse League and Roller Hockey International is telling enough. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did he play lacrosse? I didn't see that in the article. Mandsford (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He didn't play lacrosse. The nominator confused lacrosse with roller hockey. Two different sports. -DJSasso (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2010 (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.