This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2013 August 21. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was No consensus. Technically, it is 7:4, which is below the conventional consensus threshold. The arguments of both sides are revolving against WP:N. Those who propose delete argue that since no sources have been found, the player is non-notable. Those who propose keep argue that he meets WP:NHOCKEY (based on RS) which is an indication that he might be notable, but the sources are difficult to find since he retired a while ago. Both arguments are valid, and since there is no strong prevalence, I close the discussion as no consensus defaulted as keep. There is no prejudice against checking the new consensus say a year from now.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Article violates WP:N, particularly failing to meet WP:SPORTCRIT. Article subject is a non-notable retired minor league hockey player. -- NINTENDUDE 64 13:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep - meets WP:NHOCKEY #3 "Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they...[p]layed at least 100 games in fully professional minor leagues such as the American Hockey League, the International Hockey League, the ECHL, the Mestis, the HockeyAllsvenskan or other such league." Per [1] he played 98 games for the Cleveland Barons of the AHL and 31 games for the Johnston Chiefs of the ECHL. Thus, his total of 129 games in fully professional minor leagues shows he meets this standard. While this creates a presumption that can be rebutted, I do not think a simple assertion of '[a]rticle subject is a non-notable retired minor league hockey player' without any further rationale, evidence, or other convincing information overcomes this presumption. RonSigPi ( talk) 13:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment This player last played in 2004, so 9 years ago. A lot of webpages are not archived from that long ago on the Internet. Just because sources are not on the Internet does not mean they do not exist (and in turn GNG may be met even with a weak online presence). For those saying that there are not enough sources, is this based merely on Internet searches, such as through Google, or are they actually checking non-online sources (e.g., physical newspaper archives in Cleveland and Johnstown of their local newspapers)? RonSigPi ( talk) 14:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2013 August 21. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was No consensus. Technically, it is 7:4, which is below the conventional consensus threshold. The arguments of both sides are revolving against WP:N. Those who propose delete argue that since no sources have been found, the player is non-notable. Those who propose keep argue that he meets WP:NHOCKEY (based on RS) which is an indication that he might be notable, but the sources are difficult to find since he retired a while ago. Both arguments are valid, and since there is no strong prevalence, I close the discussion as no consensus defaulted as keep. There is no prejudice against checking the new consensus say a year from now.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Article violates WP:N, particularly failing to meet WP:SPORTCRIT. Article subject is a non-notable retired minor league hockey player. -- NINTENDUDE 64 13:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep - meets WP:NHOCKEY #3 "Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they...[p]layed at least 100 games in fully professional minor leagues such as the American Hockey League, the International Hockey League, the ECHL, the Mestis, the HockeyAllsvenskan or other such league." Per [1] he played 98 games for the Cleveland Barons of the AHL and 31 games for the Johnston Chiefs of the ECHL. Thus, his total of 129 games in fully professional minor leagues shows he meets this standard. While this creates a presumption that can be rebutted, I do not think a simple assertion of '[a]rticle subject is a non-notable retired minor league hockey player' without any further rationale, evidence, or other convincing information overcomes this presumption. RonSigPi ( talk) 13:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment This player last played in 2004, so 9 years ago. A lot of webpages are not archived from that long ago on the Internet. Just because sources are not on the Internet does not mean they do not exist (and in turn GNG may be met even with a weak online presence). For those saying that there are not enough sources, is this based merely on Internet searches, such as through Google, or are they actually checking non-online sources (e.g., physical newspaper archives in Cleveland and Johnstown of their local newspapers)? RonSigPi ( talk) 14:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply