Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Howard (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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Howard (hockey)

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

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG. Sources on page are passing mentions, not independent (ie NCAA and NWHL) or are a blog. A search of google has not produced any sources that would indicate there is a pass of WP:GNG. Subsequently also fails to meet WP:HOCKEY.-DJSasso (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NHOCKEY a Player of the Year of an NCAA Div I Conference is notable (Preeminent honor). The recently added detail of the specific conferences to be considered have omitted the CHA as a women's only conference. In fact the new notability guidelines for NCAA specify men's conferences:

Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer or First or Second Team All-American) in the men's play versions of the Atlantic Hockey, Big Ten Conference, ECAC Hockey, Hockey East, National Collegiate Hockey Conference, Western Collegiate Hockey Association; (bold is my emphasis)

If the guidelines have been rewritten with the intent of gender exclusion, then perhaps the issue should be elevated. Moreover, the NWHL and the CWHL had been considered top tier professional leagues along with the women's portions of the major European leagues i.e. Swedish Elite.

I can assure you that Brittany Howard contributions to the game of ice hockey have been far more notable than someone who has played 1 NHL game. Bill McKenna (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that WP:NHOCKEY points out exactly what pre-eminent honours meet that requirement, being player of the year in a single conference does not do that, even for men's players. Top 10 All time career scorer or being on an All-American team is what is required. NHOCKEY as well as any of the sports guidelines are written so that those who meet them will 99% likely have had sources written about them to meet the WP:GNG. As much as you want the women's players to have as much written about them as the men's athelete, it simply doesn't happen. On wikipedia, notability comes from articles being written about a person. Not the general sense of oh this person is important or played in a premier league. She may well have done more for the game than a guy who played 1 game in the NHL, but that 1 game guy in the NHL almost definitely would have articles written about him when he was a junior, and in the minor leagues and possible even when in the NHL. That isn't the case for her. If you think she can meet the WP:GNG then by all means find sources that show that. At this point there are none on the article that do so and I could not find any on google. -DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Cody Wydo. Both he and Brittany Howard played for RMU. Both have had outstanding careers there. Neither have met the preeminently honored player test as specified (top scorer is not an honor, so a strictly defined preeminent honor criterion is poorly met here). Their press coverage has been roughly the same. The Pittsburgh press has been pretty well-disposed to both. My push back is that a conference player of the year and a HB finalist are both pretty notable, perhaps preeminent, regardless of guidelines. So, Cody Wydo and Brittany Howard should both be deleted or kept, and I would argue for keep. As for the gender issue raised by 18abruce, I agree that this might have been the case but for the specification of men's play leagues. Except for that matter, the red-herring argument of 18abruce is borne out by the Cody Wydo-Brittany Howard example, as long as both receive the same hearing. Good and important discussion. Thanks, Bill McKenna (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, looking at Cody Wydo he likely should be deleted based on the criteria, will have to check sources to make sure he doesn't meet GNG first however. That being said you should take a read of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because another article exists doesn't mean another one should too. It often just means the other hasn't been noticed yet. There are hundreds of articles we haven't cleaned off the wiki that need to be. They tend to get nominated as found. -DJSasso (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that Wydo doesn't meet the standards, as indeed is the case for a number of male players, which is why hockey articles get sent up for deletion all the time; no doubt Bill McKenna was unaware that almost fifty articles on male players were prodded or AfDed in the last fortnight. (And, indeed, Wydo's article is now up at AfD; good catch, there!) That being said, the notion that NHOCKEY was set up with the intention of gender exclusion is deeply insulting, and I invite Mr. McKenna to retract that at once. What leagues are "considered top tier professional leagues" (and whom by, precisely?) isn't relevant to the purpose behind NHOCKEY and indeed every subordinate notability criteria on Wikipedia, which is to set forth the subjects likely to meet the GNG. If Mr. McKenna (or any other editor) would like to demonstrate that female players of the year in collegiate conferences can generally make the GNG on that accomplishment alone -- as opposed to, say, for being Olympians down the road -- then go for it. Ravenswing 17:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete conference player of the year is not the level of honors that makes someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment I think Bill has a point. The notability guidelines may be skewed towards men's players. This is something that should be discussed. Based on the info in the article, it seems this player will likely play for Team Canada. So the likelihood is good of notability. Also, there seem to be over 8,000 hits for "Brittany Howard" and hockey when I just did a search. Several at first glance look like news organizations. But 8 thousand hits will take a bit to sift through. This afd maybe jumping the gun? Alaney2k (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely play for team Canada and has played for team Canada are two different things. Per WP:CRYSTAL we can't keep based on future possible notability. If she plays for Team Canada in the future the article is easily undeleted and I will be the first to do it. I didn't go through all 8000 obviously but I did sift through probably 20 pages worth of hits. I don't disagree that the notability guidelines are skewed towards men, but that is because the coverage is skewed towards men. We don't right great wrongs at wikipedia. We just follow where the sources go. Article creators are required to supply proof of meeting WP:GNG when it is questioned, so those here who think it should be kept have 7 days to find those sources if they exist. -DJSasso (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So this is one of those things where a consensus is not needed, it's up to an admin? I realize the article can always be recreated. What about moving it to draft? Is that possible from here? Alaney2k (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fully sure what you are asking. You mean to undelete? Yes admins can undelete if the circumstances of an article change. We undelete junior/minor league players who get deleted for being created too early all the time. Although often the players are already recreated before we need to do it so its usually just a history merge. Draft is usually used if an article just needs cleaning up, but not really when it doesn't meet notability, but that is up to the closer to decide. -DJSasso (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant move to Draft: space so that it can be worked on there collaboratively. Instead of delete. Alaney2k (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I normally wouldn't object to moving to draft space, but to what end? Other than the GNG, the only avenue to notability here is making the Olympic team, and I don't much like the odds of a 22 year old player who's preferring a redshirt year to the pros and has never played internationally at any level making a strong Canadian Olympic squad. Ravenswing 12:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that the gender issue here is a red herring; the achievements would not pass a male player anyway and has been discussed recently on several occasions. As for participation on the national team, crystal or not, that seems rather unlikely since she was never part of an U18 or senior camp while many other collegiate players have. That being said I think GNG is possible here, there are copious volumes of routine sources to sift through and I have seen others pass with seemingly less.18abruce (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I meant was that wp:nhockey doesn't have any criteria for women, but it does have men's criteria. Alaney2k (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as likely WP:TOOSOON. The Pittsburgh Magazine, despite being local coverage (as WP:GEOSCOPE has sometimes been applied to local people), seems to be the only good source that meets the GNG requirements with being both apparently reliable and significantly in depth about Howard. The others are WP:PRIMARY (RMU, USCHO, NCAA, and NWHL) WP:ROUTINE or WP:MILL coverage (USCHO and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review/TribLive) and a blog (Pittsburgh Hockey Digest). The two Pittsburgh Tribune-Review articles, being a reliable source, are about the championship and she is only mentioned (one mentions she scored a goal and the other mentions she won the conference award and scored a goal, nothing of significant depth about Howard). The draft position means nothing in league that does not currently have player coverage for presumed notability per NHOCKEY (which does apply as that is her notability claim), so TOOSOON certainly applies. If an argument was to be made for including Women's College Hockey All-Americans to NHOCKEY, then it would likely still be limited to AHCA All-Americans, which she never was awarded. In my opinion, she needs at least one more non-local article of significant depth specifically about her to meet GNG. In a supplementary search, I was not seeing any better sources than what was already here (just more routine game and draft coverage and a few lists). Yosemiter (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others have mentioned, the subject's resume would fail NHOCKEY and the GNG alike were she a man, so I'm a bit of a loss as to what being female has to do with notability here one way or another. Ravenswing 17:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ask your girlfriend (if you have one). :-) Seriously though, the women's hockey as a sport is more like at the level men's men's was 100 yrs ago, and if you notice, top-ranked amateurs of that era are considered notable. Alaney2k (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Major accomplishments at the collegiate level; perhaps rank-and-file players may not make the cut, but a nationally-ranked player should. The gender issue is relevant when you note that there are far fewer professional opportunities for women in hockey, so we do have a ranking that is top of the heap for players. Montanabw^(talk) 02:12, 1 October 2017 (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.