Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Schroeder

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. Consensus is that the sources cited do not meet WP:RS Spartaz Humbug! 19:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Schroeder

[edit]
Jordan Schroeder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable amateur hockey player. He fails to acheive notability. This article can be recreated if and when he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Grsz11 →Review! 17:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep passes the usual notability standard given the level of press coverage of this guy. WP:ATHLETE is pretty explicit about being a supplement to WP:N - people who're notable per N don't become unnotable by being athletes. In extreme cases athletes are sometimes notable without playing professionally (from a Hockey perspective, Lindros clearly was, for instance) - this seems to be a case of that. WilyD 17:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All provided sources are trivial. Hockeysfuture.com covers an incredibly broad range of players, whereas the college bio in no way establishes notability. Grsz11 →Review! 17:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth investigating the subject of an article before nominating it for deletion. ;) Additionally, your use of "trivial" doesn't jive with the usual use of the word, making the assertion false is the usual understanding. WilyD 18:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does, per WP:N for a source to be non-trivial the article itself must be about the player, not just mention the player.-Djsasso (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references that I have added are not trivial. One of them is a 2,000 word article just about Schroeder. Eóin (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And do you have more than one of those? ie multiple, and from a source that is considered reliable. Most of the sources I see on the page right now are either not reliable sources ie hockeysfuture, or are local in nature, or are just brief mentions. -Djsasso (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the newspapers references that I added are from regional newspapers, the 18th and 49th largest newspapers in the U.S., and have over 500 words devoted to Schroeder. I understand that they are hidden behind a fee wall for some people but anyone with access to ProQuest can see them. Most people with a library card in the U.S. have access. There are multiple trivial mentions of him in newspapers like in high school box scores but the ones that I have added are not trivial. Eóin (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And mostly all from the same paper, the references need to be from multiple reliable sources and be non-trivial in each of them. -Djsasso (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained above and in other places, the coverage received by Schroeder is "from multiple reliable sources" and all of the cited references that I have added are "non-trivial". There are over a half-dozen articles that I have added the fulfill the above requirements. They come from three different major newspapers. How many newspapers that report similar sized coverage of Schroeder would you like there to be? Eóin (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. There's no doubt that this guy may have a "prospective NHL career" ahead of him, but as I recall, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Lindros example is a bit extreme, as, like John Tavares, he was considered The Next One. I don't think Jordan Schroeder has drawn similar comparisons. – Nurmsook! talk... 19:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, he's not quite Lindros, but Lindros pre-draft wouldn't exactly risk the skin of his teeth getting by WP:N. I don't think we can seriously dispute that he passes WP:N; I can't fathom any reading of that page that doesn't pass him. WP:ATHLETE is explicitly in addition to, not in replacement of, WP:N, so a strict reading of that still says "keep per WP:N". To argue delete needs to plead special circumstances - otherwise WP:N is very clear (even if the examples used are more prominant). WilyD 20:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Jordan is the highest ranked American prospect in his NHL draft class. He outscored Tavares in the World Junior Championships. Schroeder has been involved in the same discussion as Tavares and Hedman for the last year. As stated previously, he has press coverage and passes the usual notability standard. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this article does not suggest that. The 'Prospective NHL Career' section is but a section seen in many existing pages. Americans players in vanRiemsdyk and Patrick Kane both received their own article page even before being drafted, as did Alexei Cherepanov. Schroeder should be no different in this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bauerhoc9 (talk • contribs)
Tavares has achieved notability through other means (CHL Player of the Year). Cherepanov was a professional player before being drafted. As for vanRiemsdyk and Kane, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS counters these arguments. Grsz11 →Review! 20:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hasn't played professionally, hasn't won a significant amateur award, hasn't (yet) been drafted in the first round of the NHL draft. Once he accomplishes one of these criteria, the article can be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dwight D. Eisenhower never played professional sports, won a significant amateur sports award, and was never drafted in the first round of a professional sports draft, but he's still notable. The point being argued is that he passes other criteria; or do you also believe that he fails those? Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Schroeder fails WP:ATHLETE. He has never played professionally or at the highest amateur level. Your comparison is frankly absurd. Grsz11 →Review! 01:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To satisfy WP:ATHLETE one must either have competed professionally or "competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Schroeder currently competes in D-1 college hockey -- one of, if not the highest level of amateur hockey and has competed in the World Junior Championships -- the apex of non-professional hockey. Major Junior hockey leagues and European Elite hockey leagues are exempt from the category of amateur as their athletes receive salary. According to the criterion, not only does Schroeder satisfy WP:NOTABILITY, he satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Bauerhoc9
The highest level of amateur sport for ice hockey is the World Championships or Olympics, events in which he has not participated. He thus fails WP:ATHLETE. – Nurmsook! talk... 02:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And further, as an aside, major junior players are not paid. For some reason, people tend to think this is the case, but it isn't. – Nurmsook! talk... 02:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The International Ice Hockey Federation World Under 20 Championship IS the highest level of amateur sport for hockey players under 20. He therefore passes WP:ATHLETE. So Keep. ThePointblank (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no age restriction for those under 20 to compete in the senior world championship, so the under-20 world championship is NOT the highest level of amateur ice hockey. Patken4 (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the multiple sources that I've added to the article. There are over 120 news articles mentioning him in just the last month. He might fail WP:ATHLETE but that doesn't matter because he clearly meets notability guidelines. Eóin (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RS articles have to be about the subject for it to be a reliable source, not just mention the subject. -Djsasso (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources deals with who publishes the information not what the information is about. I think what you're trying to say that per WP:N there must be significant coverage and not just trivial mentions of the subject. The references that I added all have significant coverage of Schroeder and are published by reliable sources. Eóin (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are sources who exclusively cover as many amateur hockey players as they possibly can? "Insidecollegehockey, hockeysfuture are not reliable sources for notability. Grsz11 →Review! 03:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm still lost at what you are trying to say. I've never mentioned or referred to the sources you just listed. I don't know why you consider The New York Times, the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press unreliable sources. Eóin (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous... If this article passes I could just as easily create articles for all players projected to go in the top 50ish in the 2009 NHL Entry Draft since they are just as notable as this player (I wont, but it is equally as ridiculous as keeping this article). He is not an exceptional player, there is a huge difference being projected going first, or in this years case, first or second, and being projected possibly to go in the top 10. If he is drafted in the first round the article can be easily re-created, but until then he hasn't done anything to satisfy the criteria for athletes articles on Wikipedia. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 00:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please. Being the best draft eligible hockey player in the U.S. is worthy of 'exceptional' status and is not the kind of praise 40-50 other players are capable of claiming. His notability is legitimate whereas the notability of 'top 50ish' players is not. Don't kid yourself. -Bauerhoc9 —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
You are speculating, and being the best draft eligible hockey player in the U.S. does not equal notable unless he has played professional, competed at the highest level of amateur sports, or won a significant award. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 11:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE in that he has never competed at the highest level of amateur competition available to him which would be the World Championships or the Olympics. Under-20 players are not restricted from playing in either of those competitions making them the highest he could play at. His article can be created when/if he ever plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. D-1 players have been deleted time and again as not notable -Djsasso (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't need to meet ATHLETE if he meets the general notability criteria. Eóin (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except he doesn't meet WP:N. That is the point. -Djsasso (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added six separate 500+ word newspaper articles that solely discuss Schroeder. If that's not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources then I don't know what is. Eóin (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. We have established time and again that unless a college player does something remarkable like win the Hobey Baker Award, they aren't notable. D1 is not the highest level of amateur hockey...and the sources provided are purely local. For a player that plays across the country, the only coverage he's getting is in his home city...as do most college athletes, particularly when newspapers try to write feature articles on whole teams. --Smashvilletalk 21:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he's getting coverage in two cities; Saint Paul and Minneapolis :) And as evidenced by The New York Times Schroeder has played only in Minnesota and Wisconsin, not quite around the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.186.120 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both the New York Times and the Star Tribune only have a small notice about him, that is only trivial and far from significant coverage (sources address the subject directly in detail). Still fails WP:N. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 11:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're just cherry picking the references. I don't see how the 2,000 word article from the Pioneer Press or two 1,000 word article that are just about Schroeder aren't significant coverage. Eóin (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soo...you're saying that anyone on the planet who has a 2,000 word article about them in a major newspaper is notable? I think Wikipedia's article count just tripled...Based on your argument, I could argue that literally anyone on the planet who has received a significant piece of media coverage deserves an article. Some relatives of mine once became the subject of a mini media frenzy in Greater Vancouver when they were massively overcharged when they had their carpets cleaned. Vancouver Sun, the Province, BCTV, it was crazy! Should someone write an article about them? Didn't think so. Like where's the common sense here... – Nurmsook! talk... 23:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said or argued that a person with a 2,000 word article is automatically notable. Where do you think I said that? Your relatives are notable for one event. Common sense is that someone notable for one event is not notable enough for an article. As you can see from the six references that are over 500 words that do not mention Schroeder in a trivial manner, Schroeder has had stories about him published in reliable sources for almost four years. It's common sense that a person with a history of coverage in the media warrants an article on Wikipedia just as a person who was overcharged once does not. Eóin (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and Hockey Notability Standards. Non-notable in hockey until he competes at Worlds, is drafted in the first round, or plays in a fully professional league. Subject is not notable for anything outside of hockey (For the person who tried to assert that Eisenhower should not be notable above because of the hockey standards, he is notable for being president). Article can be recreated at such a time when the subject becomes notable. -Pparazorback (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One project's notability criteria do not over ride the general notability guideline which Schroeder meets with the multiple significant sources about him in the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press. Eóin (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the sources are not necessarily about him. As Djasso said earlier - per WP:N for a source to be non-trivial the article itself must be about the player, not just mention the player. Using your logic, then just about EVERY hockey player would be notable because they were mentioned in an article about a game. This player is still not notable. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add, both of those newspapers are local or regional in nature. They are merely covering the "local" players and teams and obviously there will be coverage on those local players. I have never seen any articles about this player in my newspaper. Do you have any extensive sources outside of the local press? -Pparazorback (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right above your comment I just stated that the sources were about him and that they were significant. Not every hockey player is mentioned in a game, aside from the box score, no matter what level of play. For additional arguments concerning the significance of the sources please see my response to Djsasso above which I have made earlier.
The location of the coverage is not as important as the coverage itself. How many NHL hockey players receive significant coverage in markets outside their own? In my experience from a hockey crazed state very few if any. Just because my regional newspapers never reports about something doesn't make it not notable. There are probably many things that you consider regionally notable and deserve Wikipedia articles that my regional newspapers have not and never will mention. Eóin (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that is the point, it has been a wide spread standard that locally notable does not equal notable enough for wikipedia for anyone, not just athletes, heck not even just people. He has to receive widespread coverage. -Djsasso (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I use the term notable I use it the Wikipedia sense of the definition, as in deserving of an article not in known throughout the community. Almost all high schools in the United States receive zero coverage outside their respective city and yet they are notable for the significant coverage they receive in their local reliable media outlets. Almost no neighborhoods of any major cities receive any sort of coverage outside the area yet many are notable. Most local politicians do not receive any coverage outside their area. The point is subjects do not have to receive coverage from around the country to be notable. There are so many counterexamples to the idea that subjects must receive widespread coverage that it would be pointless to list them. The fact is that Schroeder has received enough coverage that is significant and from reliable sources that he is notable. Eóin (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have established various times that non-major award winning college/major junior players are not notable. Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. There is nothing that makes this article any different than the other 34 non-notable articles I just linked. --Smashvilletalk 00:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles above did not have significant coverage unlike this one as I have demonstrated above and in the article. Eóin (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those actually had more significant coverage than Jordan Schroeder...Many of those players were already drafted, had played many years in college or major junior, and even played on World Junior teams. – Nurmsook! talk... 01:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin so I can't see the deleted articles but judging from the debates I counted only three who had any sort of references and in all of those debates the references were deemed trivial. That's in contrast to the half a dozen references that I have provided with all of them not being trivial. In the second part of your argument you're confusing the playing experience of a player and the notability of player. There completely different things. For example players in the NBA's D-League might have more experience than a high school player but the high school player may be notable while the D-League player might not. There are numerous articles of high school basketball players on Wikipedia. They currently do not meet WP:ATHLETE but they do meet WP:NOTABILITY. As consensus has shown, no specific notability guidelines, such as WP:ATHLETE, can override the general notability guideline. Schroeder fails ATHLETE and any HOCKEY standard but meets notability through the references provided. Eóin (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing he could even be considered notable for is being an athlete. And you admit he fails WP:ATHLETE. We're not process whores here. And I can see the deleted articles...and there is nothing special about this one. --Smashvilletalk 17:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An athlete does not need to meet ATHLETE to have an article on Wikipedia. If the subject meets notability it can have an article. There are dozens, probably hundreds, of basketball and football players who have articles on Wikipedia that have yet to be drafted or meet ATHLETE. As I stated above ATHLETE is a specific notability guidelines that cannot override the general notability guideline. Schroeder is notable for being an athlete but does not meet ATHLETE. That's not a contradiction, athletes can be notable and not meet ATHLETE. Could you point me to one of the articles that was deleted with more references than this one? None of the AfDs you just listed seemed to have any significant coverage and were rightfully deleted. Eóin (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other articles with non notable football and basketball players exist doesn't mean that this one should. He does not meet athlete nor general notability guidelines. When and if he become notable this article can easily be recreated and Wikipedia will have a fine piece for a young athlete, but until then we can not accept articles such as this one since we would be flooded with thousands of article with players who has achieved nothing in their junior career. I'm not saying that Schroeder is a bad player, of course I know of him and I'm certain that he will be a very good player some day, but so far he has done nothing to justify an article on Wikipedia. Regards. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 19:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never used the argument other stuff exists. I referred to notable athletes that compete in amateur leagues that meet notability standards but do not ATHLETE standards. One example of the type of athlete I'm referring to is Colt McCoy. No one in their right mind would nominate the article for deletion and yet McCoy fails ATHLETE completely. While Schroeder hasn't received nearly as much coverage as McCoy he has still received enough to be considered notable. The over half dozen articles that have more than 500 words about Schroeder which were published in reliable sources show this. How good a player is has nothing to do if the player is notable or not. Most good players do receive coverage but notability is dependent on coverage not skill. I've never heard of Schroeder before this AfD and I have never followed hockey. I don't think Schroeder is worthy of an article for being a good player but I do think he deserves an article because he is notable. I don't see the point of recreating an article in the future when an athlete is more notable when the athlete meets notability requirements now. Eóin (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colt McCoy does not play college hockey. College hockey is not the highest amateur form of hockey. College football is the highest amateur form of football - and we still don't consider all of those players notable unless they have performed at a peak level. Colt McCoy has also set an NCAA record and won a national award. You're comparing an NCAA-record holding QB to a freshman hockey player with 2 goals and 8 points to his credit for his career. It's apples to oranges. --Smashvilletalk 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really want to open the floodgates? You could find just as much and even more on virtually any player projected to go top 50ish in the upcoming NHL draft. They are not notable, yet, but if this article is kept we set precedent that all those players are notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. But history shows that many of them will never play at a higher level then they are at right now. We would get hundreds of articles with players who never played anything else then junior hockey. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 21:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is how many more articles do you feel Schroeder needs to satisfy WP:N?--Bauerhoc9 (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He simply does not, he is an ice hockey player, and regardless of how many articles are published about him as an ice hockey player he must meet the criteria for a athletes—WP:N does not cancel out other notability policies. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 02:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:N does not cancel out other notability policies." False. WP:ATHLETE is a supplement to WP:N. Subjects whom pass the usual notability standard, which Schroeder does, don't become unnotable by being athletes.--Bauerhoc9 (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Bauerhoc9. Take a look at this recent discussion involving specific notability guidelines and the general notability guideline. A summary and discussion is available here. Consensus has shown that specific notability guidelines like ATHLETE or any hockey project guidelines cannot override the general notability guideline. WP:N cancels every and all other notability policies. Schroeder meets notability with more than half dozen significant articles about him published in reliable sources. Eóin (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which all focus on him as a hockey player, something he is not notable for yet... —Krm500 (Communicate!) 03:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Un-indenting) Can you please state why the references provided are not enough to satisfy notability. As the consensus in the discussion that I linked to says, it does not matter that Schroeder fails notability for hockey players. All that matters is that he meets notability in general. The references show that he does. Eóin (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well quality of sources is the major issue, just to take one example, one of them is just a conversation posted to the papers website. Which based on the information on the website, anyone can post such a conversation with anyone involved in the local arts/sports scene etc. Which in effect is a blog which is not a reliable source, almost all the other sources are from a single newspaper, and the ones that aren't from that single newspaper are trivial mentions. -Djsasso (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to get truly technical, WP:IAR comes in here. Common sense says that if a player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, then he is not a notable athlete, regardless of whether or not the local paper likes to write articles about their high school players. --Smashvilletalk 15:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm assuming the reference your referring to is this one. It's not a blog entry and it can't be posted by anyone. Its an interview by 25 year sports columnist Bob Sansevere. It's published in the paper and typically takes up half of the second page in the sports section. I count significant references are from three different papers. How many different newspapers should there be?
        • As someone else mentioned above the newspapers are regional not local. The Star Tribune is published in five states and the Pioneer Press in two. I'm arguing that if a subject is notable it should have an article, I'm not being technical. Eóin (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the subject, in this case Schroeder, is not notable since he does not meet the criteria for athletes, which is what the published articles focus on. I believe this player will be notable in time and then this article can be recreated, but that is not the case for the thousands of other players which the same argument could be used on. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 17:19, 8 November 2008 (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/Jordan_Schroeder&oldid=1137956577"