Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Richards (ice 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 keep. I've never seen two keep !voters argue about whose keep rationale is more right before. v/r - T P 15:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Richards (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Meets criteria #3 of WP:NHOCKEY as he has played more than 100 games in fully professional minor leagues. Dolovis (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To start with, the rationale is poor. But also, the subject is notable per Dolovis. Patken4 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per statements above. Also, the nominator didn't qualify any rationale for deletion in the nomination, and should have followed the guidelines in Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and placed the tag Template:Proposed deletion on the article, rather than immediately referring the article to AfD. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposed deletion is an alternative deletion process, not a prerequisite. Powers ^T 02:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dolovis is mistaken, as is altogether too often the case; Richards does not meet Criterion #3, which does not include the Central Hockey League. The threshold for the CHL, as is specifically cited in Criterion #4, is "Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League ..." (Dare I hope that in the future, people examine for themselves the policies and guidelines quoted in AfD debates rather than just assume someone citing them is accurate?)
As it happens, though, Richards is the fifth leading scorer in CHL history, and was named a First Team All-Star in 2007, so he passes Criterion #4. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 05:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Ravenswing, it is not helpful to any discussion make condescending personal remarks against other editors, and declaring that editors who disagree agree with your POV are wrong ("mistaken") is uncivil. There is always room for differing opinions on issues, and my opinion is that the CHL is a “fully professional league”, but that argument is moot because this player also meets criteria #4. Dolovis (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not for the reason Dolovis mentions as he is incorrect. CHL is a lower minor league so just playing 100 games in it is not good enough. Keep because he meets Criterion #4 for being the 5th leading scorer in CHL history and being a First Team All-Star. -DJSasso (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NHOCKEY only says "fully professional minor league", which the CHL is. Powers ^T 12:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - CHL is not considered fully professional because of the amount the players are paid. Criteria #4 was specifically created for the Central Hockey League (and the juniors and other low paying minor leagues such as the SPHL which do not pay enough to live on and thus aren't fully professional because players have to have other jobs to support themselves) so that it would not be mistaken to fall into the other criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously, that didn't work. Our article on the Central Hockey League says nothing about it being semi-professional. Powers ^T 12:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - And note that List of ice hockey leagues lists the CHL under "Minor professional" not under "Semi-Pro". Powers ^T 12:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Most likely cause they don't promote themselves that way. And as everything on wiki there is disagreement on where semi-professional comes into play. Some take it to mean low pay, others take it to mean when you have to pay for your own equipment, accommodations etc. The baseball project for example says any league below MLB is not fully professional. Another real world example is that the NCAA considered the Canadian Hockey League to be semi-professional whereas the IIHF and HockeyCanada etc consider it amateur. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        So that's my point. If Criterion 3 is not meant to include lower-minor-league teams -- professional or otherwise -- then say so. Powers ^T 12:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well that is sort of what I am saying, I thought it did. Which is why the next criteria clearly indicates "lower minor league". Perhaps its a case that it was considered that people would take all the requirements together instead of trying to split them out individually. I know I assumed people would read the following point and take them together. Would have to ask Ravenswing what he meant when he wrote it but assuming from his comment above I am guessing he did as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        One would think it wouldn't have to do so, and that any reasonable editor would see two criteria referencing top-level leagues, the next one referencing upper-tier minor leagues, and the fourth referencing college, junior and lower-level minor leagues, and conclude from that "Gosh! Maybe those criteria not only define those levels, but mention the leagues to which they pertain ... hey, look, in fact, they do!" I presumed, when drafting those criteria, that a reasonable degree of common sense would prevail, and that people would (for instance) assume that a notability criterion specifically citing the Central Hockey League did, in fact, set forth the standards of notability for players of that league. To have set down in every other criterion, "By the way, this doesn't apply to the Central Hockey League - go see Criterion #4, really!" would have been unnecessary and insulting to the intelligence of the average editor.
        The above rant aside, Powers, come on. Are you really claiming to be confused here? Are you genuinely claiming that you don't think that Criterion #4 sets down the notability standards for lower-level leagues? To be honest, this is an exercise in pedantry. It's unnecessary, it's tendentious, and I don't see its relevance to this AfD. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 13:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I really don't appreciate the condescension here. Surely being condescending is worse than being pedantic? Anyway, no, it wasn't clear at all. Since the criteria are different, I thought Criterion #4 was additional to Criterion #3 for leagues that satisfied both predicates, rather than substituional. If you meant "upper-level minor leagues" why not just say so; using parallel categories ("upper-level", "lower-level") makes the mutual exclusivity of the criteria much more clear than using categories that overlap ("fully professional", "lower-level"). Powers ^T 13:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to throw such words in either direction guys. A different point of view is always good to see where the holes in our thinking may be. Certainly can work something up to tighten up the wording for the future. Both of you are good faith editors so lets try the best to drop the frustration on either side. Hockey has had enough issues in the last 24 hours. -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(blinks) You think that "all-time top ten leading scorer" would possibly be necessary to cover players that "Played at least 100 games" didn't? Heck, there's only one player on the CHL's top ten scorers (for example) who hasn't played at least five hundred games in that loop. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 13:27, 8 September 2011 (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.