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.
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject passes the GNG. Only coverage routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by
WP:ROUTINE as contributing towards notability.
Ravenswing 21:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. The
WP:NHOCKEY guideline does not say anything about women's ice hockey players. This should be discussed at the project when a female ice hockey player is notable or not. –
Sabbatino (
talk)
08:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)reply
It does, it requires them to play at the world championships or the olympics. It has been discussed at the project and other than the world championships or the olympics they were purposefully left out NHOCKEY. Otherwise it is left up to GNG which this player also fails to meet so whether or not NHOCKEY mentions them would be moot anyway. -
DJSasso (
talk)
11:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)reply
The discussion I linked first was one I started, specifically in order to hurry up the process with an in-depth study of players who would qualify for NHOCKEY by adding the only pro women's league at the time. (I am a research engineer, case studies are my bread and butter.) It should be noted, I was comparing it primarily to the
ECHL, a mid-level North American pro league that we say only meets NHOCKEY#3. I found the women had far less coverage, if any in actual news sites, than the men of the same awards each season. It is unfortunate, but that does appear to be the situation right now. Until then, GNG and BLP are the standards.
Yosemiter (
talk)
01:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Hmlarson: Your question was: "can you provide links to similar discussions + criteria for men's leagues?"
My answer was: "here is some links over the several years where we discussed men's leagues and which qualify based on observations over even more years of AfDs."
Yosemiter (
talk)
02:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)reply
You are wasting your time. Her typical method of operation is to ask questions and then when you answer ask another and another trying to filibuster the discussion. She has an extreme bias and would likely keep any article that featured a woman. I don't know that I have ever seen her admit there is no sourcing for an article on a woman and vote delete, even in situations where is was crazy obvious the article was delete worthy. -
DJSasso (
talk)
02:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)reply
And as you were told there are literally hundreds of discussions on this topic. If for some reason you want one exactly like that one discussion you are going to have to go to the places we pointed out to look for them. I can't see anyone wanting to waste their time looking for it for you. Especially since it holds no relevance to the discussion at hand. -
DJSasso (
talk)
02:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Hmlarson I'm sorry, but I am not about to link 1000 AfDs for you (hell, more than half are probably linked on Dolovis talk page archives, so start there). I did provide you discussions that were the outcome of said AfDs though. As I said, folks have discussed NHOCKEY for men's leagues ad nauseam. If you won't
WP:AGF on the decade worth of discussion, then I really can't help you.
Yosemiter (
talk)
02:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Instead of engaging in an unproductive mud-slinging match with
Djsasso, let's review:
Are you reading the same discussion, multiple people disagreed, there was very much no consensus. Secondly, that standard of inclusion/analysis is used on all sports criteria on NSPORTS. In fact there is one on the talkpage there right now for NBOXING with the exact same standard of analysis. This isn't just some attempt to block them out like you are trying to play up. NHOCKEY is meant to show when GNG can be met. There is no evidence that even all of the top award winners in the NWHL can meet GNG let alone the players who only play a single game. The standard criteria used on the NSPORTS talk page to make a change to any of the guidlines is that 99.999% of players that would be affected by the new criteria need to be able to meet GNG. The discussion analysis Yosemiter, Ravenswing and 18abruce did showed that not even the top players in the women's league were guaranteed to make it. -
DJSasso (
talk)
02:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)reply
(Maybe I should note, that you to never answered my critique below. Please provide evidence of GNG for the AfD at hand. We have gotten far off topic here.)
Yosemiter (
talk)
03:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Hmlarson: You are right it could use improved referencing, which is exactly what it needs in order to meet GNG per
WP:SOURCES. As GNG trumps WP:SPORTSPERSON, and GNG is nomination reason, let us keep it there.
As for ATD, what would the
alternative to deletion be? ATD mainly address content, not notability per the statement: If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD. If notability of the content is in question, the other options are tagging (the tag would be
Template:Notability so it does not fix it), merging/redirect (to where?), incubate (possibly, but not likely to be any different in 6 months), or archiving. None appear to apply here.
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.