Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Winkler (2nd nomination)

Scott Winkler

Scott Winkler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

(The article was previously nominated and discussed as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Karpowich) Non-notable college hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. He has not competed in any IIHF competitions, and has not played on a fully professional team or at the highest level, and has not played 100+ minor league games. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball Dolovis (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —[[U

ser:Dolovis|Dolovis]] (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC) *Keep Played for Frisk Tigers, which is a member of the Norwegian pro league. Blueboy96 00:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC) * Change to neutral--a search reveals the Norwegian league is the 13th-ranked league in Europe. Seems to be right on the line between top-level and low-level, and for that reason I'm wary of going full keep here. Blueboy96 01:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)>

• Change to delete per Nurmsook--second-division leagues in Europe are not anywhere near top-level in any sport. Blueboy96 20:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

While WP:NHOCKEY states: “Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they 1.) Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league...” the consensus of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey [1] appears to support the notion that the Norwegian pro league is not considered to be a "top professional league". Dolovis (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WHere's the discussion on this? That league is the top league in Norway--would be interested in how this consensus was reached. Blueboy96 01:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's actually not accurate at all, and no consensus to support Dolovis' statement. The AfD they point to completely contradicts his statement. Grsz 11 01:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That isn't even remotely correct. The first sentence of NHOCKEY is taken to mean the top level league in a country which is why it says top level. ie not a countries minor league. And the afd you point to completely contradicts your statement. -DJSasso (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Dolovis is correct. The "fully professional league" crap is limited to soccer (association football), and WP:NSOCCER is perhaps the silliest guideline on Wikipedia, conferring automatic notability on too many mediocre persons, and denying it to skilled persons in nations where the highest level league isn't 100% paycheck. The fans of other sports have some reasonable limitations that take into account things like quality of play, including the authors of WP:NHOCKEY. Despite being a Scandinavian nation that plays winter sports, and bordering ice hockey powerhouses Sweden and Finland, Norway has taken far less interest in the sport. Mandsford 01:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think your objection contradicts itself, but I could be misrepresenting what you're saying. NHOCKEY makes notable players at the highest level of competition, even if not in "big ones" such as the US/Canada, Russia, Sweden, Finland, etc. It requires 100 games in a fully-professional minor league, therefore I feel like your comment conflicts, but like I said, I may be wrong. Grsz 11 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

But it names the fully professional minor leagues that the project thinks are significant enough to justify a "100 games" inclusion, rather than saying that 100 games in any minor league will count. The leagues named are all one level below the North American, Swedish, and Finnish majors, and send players there. And the phrase "highest level of competition" that you quote has to be read in its context "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant, such as the 19th century Amateur Hockey Association or the Soviet League;" (what this refers to is that in the Communist era, the players from the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia were, officially, amateurs). Hence, I don't think that either section 2 or 3 could be interpreted that way. Nothing against Mr. Winkler-- not yet 21, he might make the big leagues after college-- but for now, he's not even a big fish in a little pond, and the Norway hockey league is a little pond. Mandsford 03:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it says such as. The list when creating NHOCKEY was just intended to be examples. In reality the change that happened when nhockey was created was that the requirements changed from 1 game in any pro league to 100 games in any pro league or 1 game in a top pro league. -DJSasso (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Just a question: Which part of WP:NHOCKEY does it meet? Is it #1? HeyMid (contribs) 09:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: While it is true that the "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league" statement is meant to be the top league of any nation, it appears that the subject has not played in the top league of Norway. Looking at his stats at both eliteprospects.com and eurohockey.net, he played for the Frisk Tigers' second team—that being the team that plays in Norway's first division, not the GET-ligaen which is the top level of hockey. He played for Frisk 2, not the Frisk Tigers. Don't forget, had he played in that top league, he would have been declared ineligible by the NCAA because of their strict amateur rules, so he definitely has not been paid to play. While at first glance it looks like that 2006–07 was played professionally and at the highest level in Norway, it certainly was not either. Let's not make the same mistake that was made at AfD last time. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you pointed out that there was a prior discussion, which I've located and linked up at the top. It was kept at that time (2008), although that was before sport-specific interpretations of WP:ATHLETE were made by the fans of those individual sports. I think that the examples given in WP:NHOCKEY (for that matter, the very naming of examples at all) would say more about the intent than anything else could, in that the named leagues would be the best of the minors and the best of the so-called amateurs. Mandsford 03:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. With a couple good sources, I would easily accept playing in the top Norwegian league as enough, but Frisk-2 is not in the top league. Resolute 05:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. He has played in Norway's second league, but it isn't Norway's top one, thus he doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY. It is possible that he in the future may play in Norway's top league, but that is speculation, so that is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I've no objections to moving this to userspace. Feel free to recreate the article if and when he plays in Norway's (or any other country's) top league. HeyMid (contribs) 09:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 12:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: I dispute that criterion #1 is meant to mean the top league of any nation, especially since we've talked of creating a precise list of what leagues meet which categories, as the footy folks have. Surely people don't fancy that someone who's played a single game for a Japanese or Mexican top league passes NHOCKEY, yet both countries have had pro leagues in the past.  RGTraynor  15:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's possible that I've interpreted WP:NHOCKEY wrong in that part (that I believe all top leagues meet said guideline). HeyMid (contribs) 18:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The only time I can recall us having a discussion about making a precise list is the last time Dolovis complained about this in the afd discussion above that he links. Prior to that IIRC we always took it to be the top league in that country which is why we have people like Australian hockey players or ones from the middle east. That being said I am more than willing to come up with a list, however that is going to be one hell of a POV fest. The difference between us and the list FOOTY has, is that FOOTY is just listing what leagues are professional, since they still operate under the old WP:ATHLETE where one game in any pro league meets the criteria. What we would be doing is using our POV to determine the level of play in various countries. Quite a different task. -DJSasso (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: It should be pointed out that if he did actually play professionally in Norway, then he would be ineligible to play his current team in the NCAA. ccwaters (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's probably the best point that's been made yet. Colorado College doesn't have a football team, and its at D-3 in basketball, but its ice hockey team is NCAA Division I and a student athlete has to be certified as an amateur. Besides assuming that NHOCKEY has a bye for any athletes from a fully professional league, or those on the best league in any nation, I think that there's been an assumption that the Norway league is fully professional-- and if some of its former players can be counted by the NCAA as amateurs, then it isn't fully pro. Mandsford 23:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You do realize no one is arguing keep at this point right? LoL you don't have to try and convince anyone. :) Besides which I won't get into the conversation about what the NCAA considers amateur or not. Its definition of the word amateur jives with almost every other organizations so we rarely accept what the NCAA has to say on the topic of amateur or not. -DJSasso (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's probably the best point that's been made yet. I'll stop now. Mandsford 03:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: Wow, a lot of enthusiasm! =) I like it, but I see now that it seems like he's only played for Frisk 2, which is/was in Norway's second tier. This could be compared to a football reserves team, like Manchester United Reserves, or an AHL-affiliate to a NHL-team, like Connecticut Whale. I.e. not notable for having played there, as a reserves team would never get promoted to GET-ligaen. (If so had been the case, he would have been notable according to WP:NHOCKEY #1, playing a game in a nation's top tier) Seems like this is a pretty clear delete by now. I will therefore move the article to my userspace, as I am the article's primary editor, and move it back when/if he gets notable some time ;) lil2mas (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW: How much coverage is needed to pass WP:GNG? He has been drafted by a NHL-team as only the 13th Norwegian out of 16 players as of 2010, and has played for his nation during the World Juniors (both U18 and U20). There exists multiple sources about him, so I'm just wondering? =) lil2mas (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are multiple reliable sources - and we mean newspaper or magazine articles in major outlets, not hockey blogs or draft watch websites - which discuss Winkler in "significant detail," feel free to present them. Other players have passed the GNG without passing NHOCKEY.  RGTraynor  13:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NHOCKEY is more like an essay rather than a "guideline" – I mean, an ice hockey player doesn't have to necessarily pass WP:NHOCKEY in order to be notable on Wikipedia. In general, any article whose subject has wide coverage, not just in blogs or ice hockey team websites, but in ice hockey magazines, newspapers, etc, passes WP:GNG. An exact search of "Scott Winkler" on Google gives 45,000 results, though some of them may be irrelevant. HeyMid (contribs) 13:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

NHOCKEY is not an essay at all, its a guideline. What you describe is a guideline. You are confusing guideline and policy I think. A policy you have to comply with, a guideline you do not. An essay is just one (or more) peoples opinion that is not necessarily the opinion of the community as a whole. Very different. -DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I never said that NHOCKEY is an essay – I said that NHOCKEY is more like an essay; NHOCKEY is just a checklist for which ice hockey BLPs are generally considered notable in the first place. The exception is, I think, if the player has signficant coverage outside blogs and ice hockey team websites. If someone adds references that give Scott Winkler significant coverage, I'm willing to reconsider my current vote. HeyMid (contribs) 14:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we stay off tangents and let the AFD close. ccwaters (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is what a guideline is...its not like an essay at all. And CC..its not hurting anything...this is pretty much a snow anyways...its just a wait for the end now. -DJSasso (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Djsasso, I think I got it – thanks. HeyMid (contribs) 14:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hope so. NHOCKEY lists a set of criteria, just like most other notability guidelines.  RGTraynor  17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Just needs a tidy up --Lee Reece74 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)