Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Van Hoof

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Van Hoof[edit]

Jeremy Van Hoof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE sources. Does not meet any of the requirements of WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - although the article just indicates "signed with HC Fassa for the 2006-07 Serie A season" but credible online sources shows substantial playtime. I understand that HC Fossa qualified as a "top professional league" at that time and hence the article should squeak thru WP:NHOCKEY "presumptions" of notability. The subject's play in Asia League Ice Hockey may also qualify.--Rpclod (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rpclod: Please read NHOCKEY more carefully, it is not "top professional league in a country", it is top professional leagues in the world. Per the ice hockey league assessment (based on the amount and type of media coverage a given league receives), Serie A is considered a low-level league. Asia League has absolutely no inherent notability. Mr. Van Hoof must meet GNG anyways, regardless of any presumed notability. Yosemiter (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected as to "top professional league". NHOCKEY itself just says: "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league". However, it references "the ice hockey league assessment maintained by the Ice Hockey WikiProject." Whoever maintains the NHOCKEY criteria list may want to provide a link from "top professional league" to WP:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/League_assessment#Top_level_leagues. The subject appears to have played for the following:
What is meant by the following NHOCKEY criterion? "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant". My non-hockey mind assumes both Serie A and Asia League would qualify. Also, why is the subject not considered to have "Played at least 200 games *** in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues".--Rpclod (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rpclod: It has everything to do with coverage of a league by independent and international media likely to meet the standards of GNG, which is what is meant to presume notability. As for the"Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant", I believe that comes from players in the older days of hockey (pre-NHL and such), where a significant player may be harder to prove GNG due to difficulties in finding sources. @Ravenswing:, @Djsasso:, and many others can explain far more in depth than I can, but it comes down to is the question of "Can a player in the top level Egyptian league automatically meet GNG in a nation where the sports gets near-zero coverage?"

As for the list of leagues you mention, the unlisted ones are not even the top level in their region or type (the KHL is in Asia as well) and simply have not demonstrated any signs of automatic notability. If a player does get significant coverage there, it is likely because they were a star player for the league and generated the coverage necessary to meet GNG on its own. Yosemiter (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will withdraw my initial !vote.--Rpclod (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence this undistinguished journeyman in the mid-minors meets the GNG. Truth be told, Yosemiter, you're doing just fine. To address Rpclod's remarks, first off, NHOCKEY does have a link between its criteria and the league assessment list, and has had since the league assessment list was created, several years ago. Indeed, we did not choose to link the words "top professional league" -- which isn't any more obvious a link prospect than "top-level minor leagues," "second tier national leagues," "lower minor or major junior league" or any other part of NHOCKEY addressed by NHOCKEY/LA -- but thought, perhaps erroneously, that linking NHOCKEY/LA in the very first sentence of the criteria would nor prove an unusual burden to other editors to find. Secondly, Yosemiter's exactly right: criterion #2 was intended to address that notable North American players played in the 19th century before the advent of professional leagues, and that Eastern Bloc players in countries such as Russia and Czechoslavia did so in the days when those national leagues were technically "amateur," so that we could just not airily state that amateur leagues were inherently non-notable. (Serie A and the Asia League being both, as it happens, pro leagues, I'm not seeing the relevance of the issue here.)

    That being said, many people unfamiliar with ice hockey over the years have both been confused by the verbiage of NHOCKEY (understandable) and surprisingly resistant to take the word of veteran editors as to what the clauses mean (less so). The language has been tweaked many times to attempt to address the oft-conflicting problems presented both by editors unfamiliar with hockey and those hellbent on exploiting any loophole, real or imagined, to protect their pet articles. At this remove, short of rewriting it to be several times as long as any other NSPORTS set of subordinate notability criteria, and with condescendingly direct language, NHOCKEY is what it is. Could you see your way clear to accepting that Yosemiter's explanation does, indeed, reflect consensus as to what the criteria means? Ravenswing 00:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pretty much summed up better than I could above. -DJSasso (talk) 00:53, 8 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Van_Hoof&oldid=1071952206"