Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Hinterstocker (ice hockey b. 1983)

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. Rlendog (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hinterstocker (ice hockey b. 1983)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NHOCKEY #1, has played in Deutsche Eishockey Liga for several years. —Kusma (t·c) 11:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: look at WP:NHOCKEY/LA. The DEL can satisfy criteria #3 of NHOCKEY, which is play 200 games, which he has not done. He fails NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying the DEL is not a top flight professional league? Otherwise WP:NHOCKEY #1 asks for a single game in a top professional league?? —Kusma (t·c) 19:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: For the purposes of NHOCKEY, no the DEL is not considered a top professional league. Read WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Joeykai (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeykai: Just to clarify: you consider him non-notable because the highest level national league he played in is a professional league? According to WP:NHOCKEY #2 we would consider him notable if he had played a single game in a top tier amateur league. Do you really think top level players from countries without a professional league are more deserving of articles than top level players from Germany or Switzerland (who have higher attendances at games than Sweden, which for some miraculous reason is considered a country whose top level league is notable despite being professional)? WP:NHOCKEY does not seem to be a well thought through guideline. —Kusma (t·c) 14:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: Seriously read WP:NHOCKEY/LA. "The following current and historical leagues are considered "fully professional minor leagues" – or at the caliber of the same – for the purpose of satisfying Criterion #3: .... *

Germany – Deutsche Eishockey Liga (formerly the Bundesliga) ... Joeykai (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeykai: I read that, and I read WP:NHOCKEY, and now I think that according to these guidelines, amateur leagues are more important than pro leagues. Maybe WP:NHOCKEY could do with some clarifying (for example the fact that "top flight professional league" means "one of the leagues in the arbitrary list on the page WP:NHOCKEY/LA that is linked only as a footnote"). That is *not* what "top flight professional league" usually means in English, where people expect it to mean "the highest level professional ice hockey league in some country". —Kusma (t·c) 20:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if we are down to the level of wikilawyering, WP:NHOCKEY, which I use to support my argument, is a guideline, while WP:NHOCKEY/LA is only an essay. —Kusma (t·c) 20:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you get that amateur leagues are more significant from the line "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant."? Given his birth year of 1983 this criteria cannot be applied to him in any way as fully professional leagues existed 70 years before his birth. Also your argument that playing in a top league in any country gives a player notability is not rational as there is a great variance in the quality of play and coverage in each country. By your argument a top league ice hockey league in China or Israel is the equivalent to a top league in Germany, and the German league is on par with the National Hockey League. Not all leagues carry the same notability in ice hockey; if you really have a problem with this then you should take up your grievance with the WikiProject. Deadman137 (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my argument. My argument is that WP:NHOCKEY is poorly written, and from the combination of WP:NHOCKEY/LA and WP:NHOCKEY #2 and #3 I get what I said before. Really, if WP:NHOCKEY/LA is part of WP:NHOCKEY #1, it should be spelled out explicitly, because it really does not say what you think it means. —Kusma (t·c) 09:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been gone over in many discussions by many editors. I think you just don't understand what it means. You are equating top level in a specific country with top level over all. In countries where there isn't a pro league there is still a top level professional league in other countries they could be playing in. We aren't restricting to their home countries. As for it being spelled out explicitly, it is. There is a link right in NHOCKEY saying go look at this big list (which is too big to include there) to see exactly what we mean by things like top league. While the list is an essay, because the guideline of NHOCKEY says to use it, it is essentially a guideline. You also appear to be equating attendance and quality of play with notability which doesn't play into notability on Wikipedia at all. In order to be notable on Wikipedia you need to have been written about significantly in multiple sources. NHOCKEY and the other NSPORTS guidelines are written so that their requirements should almost 99.999% guarantee a player that meets it has been written about enough to meet WP:GNG. That cannot be said about every player who played a single game in the DEL no matter how much you try to argue it I can find hundreds of 1 game players in the DEL that do not meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if anyone is looking for sources: this is made complicated because not only his father Martin Hinterstocker (ice hockey, born 1954) was a professional ice hockey player, but also his cousin Martin Hinterstocker (ice hockey, born 1989) is one. See e.g. this. As for further notability, this particular Martin also played sort of internationally in the 2008 Spengler Cup. —Kusma (t·c) 14:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joeykai Seasider91 (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He falls just short of the needed games played total and he fails the WP:GNG as well. Deadman137 (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{ping}Deadman137}} No, he doesn't fall short of needed games played. Apart from my argument that he meets WP:NHOCKEY #1, he definitely meets WP:NHOCKEY #3, having played 287 games in the 2nd Bundesliga (ice hockey), see de:Martin Hinterstocker junior. —Kusma (t·c) 09:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No he actually doesn't. As has been pointed out to you he hasn't played in a league that meets #1 and the 2nd Bundesliga (ice hockey) does not meet #3, if you look at that list if his games are in that league he would have to meet #4. -DJSasso (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to clarify WP:NHOCKEY by providing a warning about the definitions. —Kusma (t·c) 13:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NHOCKEY and as far as I can find he also fails WP:GNG. Even if he did meet any of NHOCKEY guidelines he appears to fail GNG which overrides anything NHOCKEY says anyway. -DJSasso (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to misunderstand subject-specific notability guidelines. —Kusma (t·c) 13:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you do, I am heavily involved in subject-specific guidelines. NSPORTS even has an FAQ on the page for the exact purpose of dispelling the common misunderstanding you have. I will quote The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. (bolding mine) -DJSasso (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that is what the guidelines say. It is not in my experience how they are usually applied. Especially in sports AfDs, I typically see a pass/fail of the arbitrary criteria in some guideline (for an ice hockey example, 1 game in the Swedish pro league is considered evidence of notability, while 199 games in the German pro league are not) applied as a shortcut for the discussion. Admittedly I participate in sports AfDs only once per year or so and may have missed some changes. But then, I can still remember when we did not consider all pro football (soccer) players to be notable (WP:NFOOTY, by the way, seems to be much clearer than WP:NHOCKEY), and it seems to me that the move to a more inclusive approach that has taken place there would make sense also in ice hockey. But I am probably wrong, as usual. —Kusma (t·c) 15:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah footy project still uses the "fully professional" model where any player in any league that pays a living wage meets it, which was largely abandoned by most if not all other sports when WP:ATHLETE was deprecated and changed to WP:NSPORTS. Many people have tried to get them to actually change off that model because it is easy to show that it shouldn't be the case, but they always have enough supporters to push back on that change probably due to being a much more popular sport. -DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2016 (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.