Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Canfield

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 no consensus. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Canfield[edit]

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

Declined prod. Non-notable ice hockey player/owner/coach that fails WP:ATHLETE. Biggest claim to fame is being signed as an emergency back-up in the ECHL a couple times, where he sat on the bench. Insufficient third-party coverage to pass WP:GNG. Grsz¹¹ 15:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Grsz¹¹ 15:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Grsz¹¹ 15:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for listing this. Per ATHLETE, does his role as head coach and/or as part owner confer notability, or would it just be if he'd made an actual appearance as a player? --Dweller (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He fails ATHLETE as a player (as the leagues are not "fully professional"). As a owner/head coach he is involved with very minor league and junior teams and I don't feel that there is sufficient coverage to make him notable in that position. Grsz¹¹ 15:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And presumably you'd argue there's insufficient in the references to constitute general notability for the chap? --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's accurate. Take out all the trivial mentions (atleast 10 "Transactions" articles, etc.) and there isn't much left. Grsz¹¹ 15:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played in the SPHL which is a fully professional league. He meets WP:ATHLETE. His time in the ECHL also qualifies him to meet WP:ATHLETE. As long as he was on the bench a goalie is considered to have played. Slightly different than a player who has to touch the ice. And as far as I am aware the MAHL is also a fully professional league. So its a pretty clear cut case of meeting the requirement. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I believe the argument I've heard of what qualifies as fully professional is a sustaining income. I think this article helps eliminate the MAHL from that level. They aren't professional hockey players, just part-time. Grsz¹¹ 22:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah thats is how I usually think of it, however to be technical its any league where a player is paid to play and does not cover part of the expenses themselves. ie not semi-pro. But the line at which you consider not able to make a living is very blurry. I would bet the players in these leagues are making no less than people who are living off mcdonalds wages for example.-DJSasso (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the Internet Hockey Database isn't always reliable, the ECHL keeps online statistical records from 1992 on, and its season-ending stats PDF for the 2007 season registers Canfield as "playing" three games. [1] Ravenswing 18:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete: Bleh, Mkativerata got me, the more so in that I'm the author of that notability criteria. Oops. Ravenswing 22:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have to note that part of our notability standards are written to determine who to write and who not to write an article for. While the guideline is to not write an article for a minor leaguer until they have played 5 seasons, or 100 games, it is not necessarily the final word in notability if the article already exists. The player satisfies WP:ATHLETE by having played at least 1 game in a fully professional league, and that in itself makes him notable. -Pparazorback (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails these criteria for Ice Hockey notability miserably: notability requires 100 matches or 5 seasons in a fully professional minor league. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Persuaded by the arguments above, notably the lack of professionalism at this level. --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEUTRAL: He passes WP:ATHLETE with a couple apparent appearances in the ECHL and SPHL, but just barely. ccwaters (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has played in a fully professional league. Even though the standards have said 5 years or 100 games, we have several players who have survived afd with at least 1 appearance in leagues such as the ECHL. As such, I would endorse keeping this article due to prior precedence. -Pparazorback (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He passes WP:ATHLETE, which to me trumps the projects criteria. Patken4 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails criteria noted above. Wizardman 22:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which criteria might that be? He passes WP:ATHLETE since he played in a fully professional league. -DJSasso (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2009 (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.