Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McFarland (ice hockey)

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. There are a lot of keep votes but they all are asserting notability without reference to policy. Its clear the player doesn;t pass HOCKEY so GNG is the only basis we will accept notability. The sources provided clearly have neen refuted and a local consensus cannot overturn the site wide consensus of where our inclusion threashold is. Either plays and meets HOCKEY or someone writes some in deopth coverage of him. At that point he meets our policies but until then his is just below the threashold and gets deleted. I'm very happy tio undelete on the spot as soon as the coverage or gametime is there. Spartaz Humbug! 03:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Having slept on the close and rewviewed the discussion on sourcing on my talk page [1] I'm reclosing this as No consensusSpartaz Humbug! 04:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John McFarland (ice hockey)[edit]

John McFarland (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Junior player who has yet to play professionally or meet any of the conditions of WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if the subject acheives notability. I do acknowledge his being the first pick overall in the OHL, however that is not notable as many people picked in that position have never amounted to anything. WP:CRYSTAL. Since it was a disputed prod claiming it that the player won a major award. The Jack Ferguson Award is not a major award, not every award given by a league is major. The major awards are MVP, Top Defence, Top Goalie, First All-Star team. (generic names to apply to any league). An award given to someone drafted first is none of those things. DJSasso (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Explicitly passes criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY. He has achieved preeminent honours by being awarded the Jack Ferguson Award, which is a major award given by the OHL. This player went 1st overall in the OHL selection draft, and this article is justified by WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Jack Ferguson Award as mentioned above is not a major award. Not every award handed out by a league is considered major. Sources on page all refer to one event which makes it a case of WP:BLP1E. -DJSasso (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Jack Ferguson Award is a major award. There is no consensus that a "major award" as given out by ice hockey leagues is limited to "MVP", "Top Defence", "Top Goalie", and "First All-Star team" as you have stated in your deletion nominations here and here. By making such a bold statement without claiming it to be your personal opinion, you have implied that your statement is a fact (i.e. support by a consensus) - but it is not as it is only your opinion. Please state your personal opinions as your opinions, and do not attempt to mislead others into thinking that this is an issue that has already been decided by consensus. I suggest that you strike your bold statements and rephrase them as your opinion. Dolovis (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus that the Jack Ferguston Award is a major award, so it would appear that that is just your opinion as well. Does anyone have any evidence that it is either a major or minor award? My own opinion is that it would be a minor award, as it appears to be awarded solely on the basis of who was drafted first that year (as opposed to being awarded on the basis of being a good player, scoring a lot of goals, i.e. actually doing something), and it is not even a national award (it's only for the Ontario Hockey League), and it is only awarded to teenagers. One thing you may be confused about is that when WP:ATHLETE says "major award", it is meant as a major award in the context of the sport as a whole, not in the context of the league in question. So, while the JF award may be a major award for the OHL, it is almost certainly not a major award in the context of the entire sport of hockey. SnottyWong babble 23:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussions for creating the NHockey guidelines, major award was discussed as being the equivalents in various leagues of the big 3 in the NHL. Hart, Norris, Vezina. Which my comments are in line with. So before you go spouting off that I am stating opinion and not consensus maybe do a bit of research. -DJSasso (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And just to be fair and get an up to date consensus I will bring it up at the project so that its crystal clear. -DJSasso (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline keep I don't think the Ferguson Award is enough. There seems to be enough for general notability, but a lot of that is from websites reviewing prospects for the 2010 NHL draft and the OHL draft. Not all are specifically about him, so I'd knock them down a bit in value. He was the scoring leader for the under-17 world's, but that's not a major tournament in the overall Wiki scheme of things. Overall, I'd probably lean to 'keep'. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong yak 23:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest Keep Possible - The difference between this one and the AfD for Daniel Catenacci is that McFarland has actually been drafted into a national, professional league that is not limited to teenagers. I would prefer to have him actually have played in the league before he has an article written about him, but maybe that's just me. I think notability has not been established yet, however it is very likely to be established in the near future, so it's probably worth keeping the article. I would not be against deleting the article and recreating it once the athlete has actually played in a few games and gotten some coverage outside of the teenager league. SnottyWong yak 23:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you are justifying keeping the article because he was drafted by the NHL, WP:NHOCKEY inclusion criteria #5 says notability is achieved if the player was selected in the first round of the NHL draft. The subject was a second round selection. Is it probable that he will eventually achieve notability, I would say yes, however currently that opinion is trumped by WP:CRYSTAL. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A first overall pick in the OHL draft does not qualify as being more notable than a first overall pick in any other junior draft just because the OHL hands out a trophy for it. This individual is, for the moment, not notable. Resolute 23:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has not yet met the standards set by WP:NHOCKEY. Being the first player drafted in a junior league does not establish notability, nor does being selected in the NHL draft, as according to standards, only first round draft picks are considered notable for players who have not otherwise established notability. Can be recreated or restored when notability is established. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is being the leading scorer at the 2009 World U-17 Hockey Challenge notable? I would say no because I don't think it is a significant tournament, but would like input from others on the hockey project. Patken4 (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The tournament itself barely receives any press, so I would say no, remember these guidelines are meant to guide you as to when news articles are likely to exist to allow a player to pass the GNG. So as I said, if the tournament itself is barely covered (in comparison to the World Juniors or the U-18 even to a lesser extent) then I doubt its leading scorer will see many substantial articles about him come out of it. -DJSasso (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Okay, let me get this straight: Brock Nelson, a high school hockey player who has won no awards and has competed in no international tournaments, and who no one has heard about, is notable because he was picked 30th overall in the 2010 NHL Entry Draft; but John McFarland, who is an OHL star player, who was picked 1st overall in the OHL draft, and has won the Jack Ferguson Award, and who was named the tournament's most valuable player at the 2008 OHL Showcase tournament, and who is now playing in the World Junior hockey Tournament (which is shown live on TV in over 30 countries), and who anyone who is a hockey fan has probably heard of, is not notable because he was picked 33rd in the 2010 draft? Give your head a shake. I'll find 20 reliable and significant sources to demonstrate he passes WP:GNG if I have too, but that should not be necessary because he already passes WP:NHOCKEY (#4). If you don't like NHOCKEY then open a discussion to change it, but as it reads now this article is a pass. Dolovis (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The hockey project already has its consensus that NHL First round draft picks are notable. That line had to be drawn somewhere. I do not see anything that claims that the Jack Ferguson Award is one of the "Achieved preeminent honors" criteria, which are "all-time top ten career scorer, regular season or playoff MVP, first team all-star, All-American". He fails WP:NHOCKEY (#4) at this time. If that award establishes notability, why is there not articles on Patrick Jarrett (2000 Winner), John Uniac (1987 Winner) or Dave Moylan (1984 Winner). -Pparazorback (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dolovis I don't think you understand how WP:NHOCKEY works. Meeting any of the criteria does not guarantee an article, its just a guideline to when a player is likely to meet GNG. You always have to meet the GNG. Its not a case of this player got an award so the GNG doesn't matter anymore, what it means is that, hey this player won an award so he probably has articles about him out there so go find them. I think you significantly misunderstand how NHOCKEY and GNG work. Players who don't meet the criteria can still have an article if they meet the GNG and players who meet NHOCKEY can still have an article deleted if they don't meet the GNG. The reason we use the first round as a cut off line is that someone who is drafted in the first round is significantly more likely to meet the GNG than someone drafted in the second round. NHOCKEY is not a free pass to not having to find sources, every article has to have sources. Even an NHL player. And the burden on proof is on the people calling for a keep to prove they exist and add them to the article. -DJSasso (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DJSasso, I do understand how NHOCKEY works. I also know that the burden is on the nominator to first look for sources. You obviously didn't, because the are many reliable and independent sources to be easily found. The reason that a "major award" is a criteria is because it assures us that such sources are to be found if we look. The Jack Ferguson Award is such a major award, and thus I will be able to find the sources to justify the article under WP:GNG. As I know you will not put in the effort, I will put together a list of reliable and independent sources which I will post here before the end of tomorrow (unless some other kind soul is able to do it for me before then). Until then, I hope that independent thought and common sense starts to take hold in this AfD. Dolovis (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I'll find 20 reliable and significant sources to demonstrate he passes WP:GNG if I have too, but that should not be necessary because he already passes WP:NHOCKEY" indicates you don't because you are outright saying you shouldn't have to find sources because he passes NHOCKEY. If you don't provide them it doesn't matter if he passes NHOCKEY because he fails WP:V which is the other criteria required. There is no burden on the nominator but a good faith assumption that the nominator will do so, as I did do. And there was nothing to be found but press releases, game summaries, passing mentions and general WP:ROUTINE coverage, none of which add up to meeting the GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read any of these? Most of these are just passing mention of him lumped in with many others or they are blogs such as yahoo sports and bleacher report. Your labels on them make it look like the articles are about him, when in many of them they are not. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I knew Djsasso would say that, but what he says is not true and my labels are accurate descriptions. To dismiss all such references out-of-hand demonstrates that Djsasso's mind is closed. I challenge Djsasso to give his analysis for each of the above twenty references so that we can have an insightful debate about the merits of each. Dolovis (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than willing to consider sources, but this list looks like you just grabbed the first 20 that came up. I will read them and analize them. I can say right off the bat the first one is as routine as you can get. A news organization anouncing a draft pick which they would do no matter who the person is. That reference isn't even close to being "in significant detail". It will take a bit for me to write up about the others. -DJSasso (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 is an article about every player the panthers drafted and only is a passing mention on him. (Not even close to 5 paragraphs, closer to 5 sentences)
  • 3 is a blog.
  • 4 is a single sentence mentioning who the tournament MVP is.
  • 5 is a blog.
  • 6 is about the trade and not primarily about him.
  • 7 is again talking about the trade and not primarily about him.
  • 8 is also passing mentions in an article about 17 year olds making the team.
  • 9 is not about him at all and is a game summery.
  • 10 is a passing mention that again does not cover him in significant detail.
  • 11 same as #10, just mentions he is part of the team.
  • 12 is an article about players being added to the team and is not primarily about him.
  • 13 is a primary source press release.
  • 14 is again talking about the trade and not primarily about him.
  • 15 is an Op-Ed which is not a reliable source
  • 16 is a blog.
  • 17 is a blog.
  • 18 is the same source as #1
  • 19 is a blog.
  • 20 is a single sentence saying he'd been named captain of a team in listing of news wire tidbits. So not even close to significant detail.
There. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, your superficial and self-serving "analysis" is inaccurate and is less-than useless. As an admin you should have read WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:SIGCOV which states that “Newspaper and magazine blogs are acceptable as sources” and “significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material”. I suggest that you simply state your argument as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and then get out of the way so that other editors have there say. Dolovis (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of newsblog. I do not see that those blogs are under editorial control. Its very rare that they are. And this isn't even remotely an I don't like it arguement. It's a source it arguement. You should probably read these various terms you throw out there. I am not remotely saying I don't like the article, I think its a decent short article, I also think he is likely to pass the bar in the future and at such time the article can be restore/recreated. At this moment I don't see enough to show his notability. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(added since dolovis changed his comment after my reply) "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" is the key, mentioning someone was part of a trade for example but then not going on to talk about that person in detail beyond their point total or whatever is not significant and is a trivial mention. You can't write a biography from two sentences that mention who they are, their position and their point total which is the whole point of ensuring that the coverage is significant. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with DJSasso on his interpretation of these sources, and will add that Bleacher Report should never be considered a reliable source. The Yahoo! and THN blogs have more clout as it is affiliated with a major media company, but overall, I'm not seeing significant coverage here. Resolute 19:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The news articles linked to in the article, such as this one [2], give him ample coverage to pass the General Notability Guidelines. Dream Focus 21:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is an interesting case. McFarland has not passed notability standards described by in WP:ATHLETE, but I would argue that he does pass WP:GNG. For a few years, McFarland was touted as being the next John Tavares, so if you dig back, there does exist media coverage of him that would pass GNG. Obviously much of this coverage is not in the article, but it does exist. – Nurmsook! talk... 01:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sourcing seems sufficient, status as #1 draft pick makes him newsworthy and of interest to hockey fans. Just because there is no automatic path for minor league athletes into WP doesn't mean there is a BAN on bios of minor leaguers. This article seems to be over the bar for inclusion, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think he passes GNG.
I would point out that WP:NHOCKEY says "players are presumed notable if...". No part of that guideline says that if a player doesn't meet the options in NHOCKEY, then any claim to notability is annulled, overruling GNG. (And if the wording of NHOCKEY ever did try to overrule GNG in that way, I'd correct it myself). bobrayner (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2010 (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/John_McFarland_(ice_hockey)&oldid=1137953846"