- Willie Levesque (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This AFD regarding an ice hockey player was closed as no consensus. The closing administrator states in the rationale that "Those who propose delete argue that since no sources have been found, the player is non-notable." and that "Those who propose keep argue that he meets WP:NHOCKEY (based on RS) which is an indication that he might be notable, but the sources are difficult to find since he retired a while ago.". While it is true that it's harder to find Internet/online sources for players who retired long ago, this player played AHL and ECHL hockey as recently as 2004. If difficulty in finding sources is a valid keep reason, what about Wayne Gretzky, who retired in 1999? The closing administrator also states that "Both arguments are valid, and[...] there is no strong prevalence". Wayne Gretzky is obviously notable, but my point is that the fact that the player retired long ago should not, in itself, be a valid argument for keeping the article. Although WP:NHOCKEY presumes notability, it won't—nor should—guarantee notability. Basically, if a hockey player meets any of the WP:NHOCKEY criteria, there's a great chance that there are enough sources that confirm the player's notability. But WP:NHOCKEY in itself should not guarantee notability. If a player meets WP:NHOCKEY but its notability is disputed, it should be up to those who believe the player is notable to find sources that confirm the player's notability, whether it be online or offline sources. The 7:4 consensus in the AFD indicates, at least to me, that WP:GNG trumps WP:NHOCKEY in terms of notability. Levesque has not played in the NHL either. I do not agree with this closure, and I think it should be changed to delete. Heymid (contribs) 09:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I replied on my talk page, the case to me is clearly borderline, so I would not object if my closure gets overturned.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse it is reasonable to say that discussion had no consensus. As a NC close, feel free to bring it back shortly (month or two?). Secondly, there are going to be sources that cover him in reasonable depth (enough to make a case for meeting WP:N at least). It sounds like he played for Northeastern--there is going to be coverage in the school paper and maybe a local paper. There will also be some local coverage (likely small press) where he played. Did anyone contact him? I'm guessing he'd have copies of any significant coverage. Hobit (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is about finding the sources, not presuming that the sources exist. You can't prove that sources don't exist. I noticed that a number of sources were added in the article today, but most of them are only statistical pages for individual games and transactions. His NHL profile does not add to his notability either (I suppose that every player drafted in the NHL draft have NHL profiles), it's just basic information about him, but nothing in the stats, game log, notes etc; only one link in the "News" tab too. This also makes it hard to expand the article with more information regarding his playing career. Also, he was only drafted in the 4th round, as 111th overall. And he is retired, so he won't be playing any more games. I don't think this player is notable enough for Wikipedia. Heymid (contribs) 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that the fact that there ARE third-party sources to his career makes him notable under WP:N... and those sources plus his stats also make him notable to NHOCKEY... the sources added do include a few actual newspaper articles... and they do mention him as an ECHL and AHL player... irregardless of his draft level in the NHL, he was an established, fully professional hockey player and the sources agree with this. DMighton (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse (maybe...) this is hard because had I seen it earlier, I likely would have opined for keeping this article on the basis of what I've managed to find since, which includes coverage from a 2013 pro-am tournament, coverage from his World Hockey Junior Championships appearance, passing mentions of his performances in various matches like this and passing mentions in USA Hockey Magazine. By itself, a large collection of passing mentions wouldn't likely be enough, but alongside the fact that he passes WP:NHOCKEY, it's probably enough for me. But I don't think my want to contribute is reason enough to relist the debate and I can see where the nominator here is coming from in terms of process. Perhaps add some of those newer sources that do provide him with some coverage and then re-test consensus with a new AFD in a little while (which is perfectly acceptable for a no-consensus close)? Stalwart111 14:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I'm not saying this was a super-notable hockey player... never even heard of him before today... but I was able to add references to the article proving his existence as a professional hockey player with relative ease. I'm not sure if other editors didn't want to put in the effort because he isn't a well known name... but I don't feel that deletion is required. Just my opinion. I can probably do a lot more with the article, I just put in a few minutes this morning waiting on my kids to see if this was really all there was. DMighton (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, but completely understand the closer's rationale. We have over time pretty much elevated SNGs to godlike status, but they are by definition arbitrary. NHOCKEY only presumes notabilty on the basis of those arbitrary criteria, and this player only barely met the easiest one on the list. I !vote overturn, however, because the closer missed one critical aspect of the deletion debate: The player fails WP:Notability (sports)' basic criteria. NHOCKEY is part of that sports notability guideline, and if it fails the basic part, then the part specialized for hockey is irrelevant. Even the articles Stalwart111 adds above are just passing mentions. There is no evidence in the article at present, none added in that AFD, none in this DRV and none that I can find myself that indicates this player meets WP:GNG. Resolute 19:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I did not miss this, but mentioned this explicitly in my closing rationale (WP:N is in the relevant part equivalent to the basic criterion of WP:Notability (sports)).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, fair enough. In that case, my view is that insufficient weight was given to that argument. Notability as defined by WP:N/WP:GNG was never established. The Keep side of the argument relied on NHOCKEY as a crutch to support the article but utterly failed to demonstrate notability. The guy's career was entirely within the internet age. Sources are hard to find because they don't exist. Resolute 21:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn While I understand where Ymblaster was coming from, NHOCKEY doesn't trump GNG, not to mention the keep side rationales were weak and ignored the GNG completely by not providing sources, so it was a faulty close policy wise and consensus was clear. Note: I did recommend deletion in the debate, but that was mainly because I was arguing with another user to death about notability on another debate, which led me to this one. I rarely comment on AFDs outside the area of American football and lists, (both of which I do not close because of my strong viewpoints in those areas) so I'm reading this according to how I would have closed it if I didn't participated. Secret account 01:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse per Stalwart. Canuck89 (converse with me) 06:40, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
- Endorse - per Hobit and DMighten as a reasonable no consensus closing. Presumption of notability per NHOCKEY has been established, with comments for and against his notability argued in AfD. Sources are presumably available (microfiche, ect.) for a prfessional player at his level, and no one has proven sources do not exist to overturn the presumption of notability. Outreels (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse GNG is one way to meet N, SNGs are another--if either is met, an article is appropriately kept, and thus a no-consensus close would be a policy based outcome. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that this SNG specifically indicates that meeting it can still lead to deletion. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Per Jclemens and others. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 17:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, while SNG's can create a presumption of notability, that is a rebuttable presumption. In this case, it clearly was rebutted, and in this case, the subject is not notable. The consensus at the discussion for that position was clear and policy-based, and the discussion should've been closed accordingly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn SNGs only give the presumption of notability, and this one in particular even makes it clear that meeting it does not guarantee an article must be kept. Without the keeps presenting a number of sources proving that the player meets GNG then policy dictates he can and should be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - The subject clearly meets the criteria for inclusion articulated at WP:NHOCKEY (as established by a consensus of editors), a fact verified by numerous reliable sources. The presumption of notability was not clearly rebutted and, in fact, the article is sourced with several independent and reliable sources including USA Today and the New York Times. Dolovis (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
