Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Spivak (2nd nomination)

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) 02:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Spivak[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an awfully brief nomination comment for a second nom, don't you think? Anyway, at the time of this article's creation and for many many years afterward, WP:NHOCKEY did not specify that a national team player had to play at the highest IIHF level to be presumed notable. Any player with an international cap was presumed notable. I assume the change to that guideline is fairly recent, probably intended to target articles exactly like this one. But I don't like the change, and I'm surprised it gained consensus. It's discriminatory against players who live in and play for countries that are not traditional hockey powers. Powers ^T 21:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I am surprised, when reading the prior nomination, that he passed so easily. For instance "they are playing at the highest possible level for the country they come from." which in fact is not true. Daniel grew up in Canada, and at 16 took the opportunity to play for the Israeli men's team because he was born there. That was not the highest possible by a long shot. Anyway if you wish to pursue GNG coverage, articles like this one would be a start, but not enough yet I don't think. The Canadian Jewish News has some passing mentions, but maybe with some digging there may be something more significant.18abruce (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. To answer Powers, no, the various changes in NHOCKEY were not made to "target" any articles. They were made to better reflect what every NSPORTS criteria is supposed to reflect: the likelihood of those who meet them to satisfy the GNG. Since Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for social engineering, we gave no shrift -- nor should we have -- to whether or not the NHOCKEY criteria was "discriminatory." Those countries which aren't traditional hockey powers have a common factor: their media doesn't pay much attention to hockey, and so do not generate the degree of coverage necessary to meet the GNG. Now if you think that this article ought to be saved, you have the means to do so ... just find significant coverage for the subject in multiple reliable sources. Ravenswing 10:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a strong opposition among sports editors on Wikipedia to taking into account institutional biases in coverage when evaluating the inclusion criteria. Women's sports and non-traditional sports in general tend to suffer from this problem. The last thing I feel we should be doing is further cementing that bias by slavishly insisting on the same levels of coverage for "non-mainstream" teams and leagues and players as we do for the ones who regularly appear in Sports Illustrated. Powers ^T 18:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason there's such opposition is simple, and I reiterate: NSPORTS criteria are based upon whether or not a subject can meet the GNG. There is no scope in Wikipedia notability rules and guidelines for waiving those guidelines in favor of of yours, mine or anyone else's subjective POV as to who's worthy of an article despite not meeting them. That -- for instance -- our culture doesn't care a whole lot about women's sports (beyond outliers like basketball, tennis and gymnastics) is regrettable, but if the coverage necessary to meet the GNG isn't there, it isn't there. Ravenswing 19:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~possible~~ weak keep I added some articles that focus on him to the article; I did not add routine coverage about being drafted and game coverage. In addition, there are ethnic press mentions as here [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked over those links highlighted. I believe we agreed in an earlier AfD that the Canadian Jewish Press constituted a reliable source, but what you highlighted were all casual and routine namedrops that we wouldn't have counted as meeting the GNG were they in the New York Times or The Hockey News. Ravenswing 19:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reputable ethnic papers are RS the way all reputable newspapers are. Look, I'm not gonna push very hard here, but to dismiss the stories I added as "routine namedrop" is inaccurate. Although they are local to cities where he played, the coverage and feature stories I added are precisely the kind of sourcing that does count towards GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strengthening my keep on the basis of news coverage already in article, more like this [2], [3], and the documented career in youth league, college and minor league pro hockey.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players. The rest of the coverage is not indepth enough to lead to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete not sufficient coverage. Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Dloh cierekim 01:07, 1 May 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.