Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Couture

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Couture[edit]

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

Low minor league hockey player that fails WP:GNG. PROD was disputed on the basis of passing WP:NHOCKEY, however that SNG only presumes notability on the basis of meeting an arbitrary statistical target. It does not guarantee notability, and there isn't really anything beyond routine game coverage. Reso lute 19:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Reso lute 19:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Derek Couture is a current professional ice hockey player who passes NHOCKEY having played more than 500 games in the ECHL and AHL, with more play expected in the comming season. Outreels (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have already explained why passing NHOCKEY does not guarantee notability in this case. Se also WP:SPORTCRIT, which is the basic criteria for the sports notability guideline, which an athlete also has to pass for NHOCKEY to even apply. Would you care to address that aspect of the problem? Reso lute 16:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having played over 500 games in the AHL and ECHL, combined with a short stint in the top-level Austrian league as well as a four-year junior career in the WHL, Couture meets NHOCKEY by leaps and bounds. (Note: I am disinterested in any "commentary" on my vote. I have stated why I believe the article should be kept. Let it be.) --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 17:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:NHOCKEY is only a presumption of notability. WP:NHOCKEY is not a checkbox list where you can say that "This player meets criteria x of WP:NHOCKEY, so this player should have an article!". Even if the player meets WP:NHOCKEY, you still need to find references asserting that the player meets the general notability guideline for notability on Wikipedia. Hey mid (contribs) 08:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's played eight seasons of professional hockey in the AHL, ECHL, and has even played in the Austrian Hockey League! You might as well just throw out NHOCKEY if you are going to ignore the presumption of notability for such an established professional hockey player. NSPORTS was created by a consensus of editors and, per that consensus, this article must be kept unless you are able to demonstrability prove that sufficient sources do not exist. In this case, the rebuttal of the presumption of notability has not been met. Dolovis (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You've been around far too long to seriously expect anyone to buy such a silly argument, Dolovis. You are well aware that the burden of proof is yours, and you have to demonstratibly prove that sources do exist. And since you agree that NSPORTS is applicable, then please demonstrate, per NSPORTS, that Couture has been the subject of multiple published, non-trivial, secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. And keep in mind that NHOCKEY only establishes the presumption of notability. I am challenging that presumption. Reso lute 22:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually, WP:NSPORTS states (and I quote): "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." and that standard has been met within the article. Dolovis (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: All the GNG requires are two or more reliable sources discussing the subject. We have this interview from the Seattle Intelligencer [1], and this one from the Worcester Telegram-Gazette [2], and they keep piling on. Honestly, Resolute, with this string of minor-league AfDs, it appears that you're trying to do through the deletion process what you failed at doing at WP:NSPORTS: change the criteria of NHOCKEY to suit your prejudices. Ravenswing 23:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If by "string", you mean two, then sure. I actually came across several of Dolovis' creations while cleaning up after the Houston Aeros move that were little better, not maintained and often out of date, but only nominated these two as the most significant failures of GNG. As to your two links, I did see them. The former might be okay (shock of shocks, Dolovis never used it when starting that page), but the latter is not about Couture. That's more of a trivial mention as part of a larger story. In my view, this player lacks multiple, non-trivial sources so as to pass GNG. Reso lute 00:04, 27 August 2013 (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.