Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Fenton (ice hockey)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Redirect to 2010–11 Phoenix Coyotes season. Fenton suited up for, but did not play in, a December 16 NHL game. If he does appear in a game, qualifying under WP:NHOCKEY, the redirect can be undone and the information would continue to be available. Mandsford 14:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Fenton (ice hockey)

[edit]
Tom Fenton (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a professionally athlete, Fenton fails WP:NHOCKEY, having never competed professionally. The NHL does not consider sitting on the bench as a back-up goalie as playing, and we generally take the same stance here. He was not signed to a professional contract, and therefore was not paid. As an amateur, a few sources provided are not more than trivial mentions and his amateur career and a pretty non-notable program is insufficient to otherwise achieve notability. Without being notable based on his playing career, in order for him to be deemed notable, we would have to accept that the coverage surrounding his being signed for one game by an NHL team is substantial to overrule WP:BLP1E, which it simply is not. Grsz 11 01:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote has no rationale. See WP:NOREASON. NOTNEWS does not apply as coverage of the aubject extends beyond his one-game NFL signing. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there has been no proof that coverage exists beyond this one event that is not routine coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there has, you just refuse to accept it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was a non-notable college hockey player. His claimed notability revolves entirely and completely around the news story of an unknown former college player getting to sit on the bench for a night as an emergency back up. He is known for only one event, and that one event is just a news story. Resolute 15:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he has multiple articles discussing him during his college playing days as well as his one-game fill in disproves all of this. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I would say that "we generally take the same stance here" is a little on the mild side; the NHL is the sole arbiter of who counts as playing in an NHL game or not, and the NHL rule is that you have to take the ice to be counted as having played. Goalies on emergency fill-in ATOs happen every year or so, in similar circumstances; heck, having been a season-ticket holder in Springfield for years, I can recall at least three instances where an AIC goalie sat on the bench. Absolutely a WP:BLP1E.  Ravenswing  04:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E does not apply because the media coverage of him extends beyond his one-game contract with the Coyotes. And if these other emergency signees satisfy the GNG then maybe we should have articles about them as well. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there has been no proof that coverage exists beyond this one event that is not routine coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there has, you just refuse to accept it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there hasn't. There are trivial mentions. But AIC isn't a notable program, so it's back-up goalie isn't going to get coverage unless he did something spectacular. The best potential is when he was playing good after not starting for years, but he's mentioned for two (short) paragraphs.

Grsz 11 15:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't the backup, he started his freshman year at least. They are not trivial mentions. And why isn't AIC a notable program? I see people here who keep repeating that things are "not notable" without providing any substantive evidence to that effect. In any case, notability is not inherited, so AICs notability is irrelevant. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E does not apply because the media coverage of him extends beyond his one-game contract with the Coyotes. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there has been no proof that coverage exists beyond this one event that is not routine coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there has, you just refuse to accept it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ITSNOTABLE. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BLP1E does not apply because the media coverage of Fenton extends beyond his one-game contract with the Coyotes, well into his college playing years where, in his Freshman year, he was Rookie of the Week and Goalie of the Week multiple times in his league.Multiple, reliable, third-party sources, all supplied in the article, are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. WP:NHOCKEY is a counterpart to the GNG, not a replacement for it. ANYTHING that satisfies the GNG ought to be kept as GNG is the foundation of the notability guideline. Note also that NHOCKEY says "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". I will also request that the closing administrator please do their best to weigh the strength of the policy-based arguments here and not just treat it as a majority vote, which it is not. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —- Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By all means add some of that coverage to the article then, of the 3 references that have anything to do with his amateur career, two are passing mentions which are just listing off the "of the week" honours and are not specifically about the individual. So currently it does not look like there is coverage beyond his one event with the Coyotes. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't trivial passing mentions, they discuss him enough to pass that threshold, and the third, as you say yourself, isn't even in the realm of a passing mention. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No generally to be considered not passing mentions you need a couple paragraphs or have a significant portion of the article be about the player himself and not just talked about in context to another topic, in this case the main topic is the league awards. The fact that they mention him is just WP:ROUTINE in that they list who won the award every week. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That is one interpretation of the GNG, but the actual guideline says "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. There's no detailed explanation of what a trivial mention is. Reference #1 has a paragraph about him winning Rookie of the Week and Reference #3 has 2 paragraphs about him. Reference #2 is almost entirely about him. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't address him in detail, all it does is state he won an award and played well. That is not adressing him as a person in a significant way, you can't write a biography off that. Stating how someone played is just a routine comment on some games. If there is significant coverage of him it shouldn't be hard to find other articles should it be? -DJSasso (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's significant enough to discuss an ice hockey player or any other athlete who has played well enough to be a Rookie of the Week or Goalie of the Week. A trivial passing mention or an example of something that can't be used to establish notability would be like a list of active players, a simple stats box or some such. Refs 1 and 3 have actual paragraphs; note that I've deliberately left out the 30 or so news articles that simply mention that he played in a game, or the one that mentioned he had 46 saves in a game, because those ARE trivial passing mentions. Finally, as I've stated, Reference #2 is almost entirely about Fenton himself, over multiple paragraphs. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are relatively trivial awards as far as the NHL goes, never mind as far as a bottom-of-the-league, just barely Div I team goes. You may be failing to understand the amount of publicity AIC gets compared to the Michigans, Denvers and Boston Colleges of the collegiate world. I'm almost certainly the only person likely to contribute to this debate ever to see AIC play, and I lived in the city AIC is in for 12 years, and Springfield Cathedral High School gets more sports coverage. I'm with DJ in believing this to be routine sports coverage, as WP:ROUTINE explicitly addresses, and that's pushing the point, because the USCHO website is not what most people would consider mainstream media coverage.  Ravenswing  20:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about the NHL. One does not need to play games for the NHL to satisfy the GNG. Does anyone actually read this policy? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No disrespect to the player but it's received media coverage because it's a nice feel good Christmas time story. And about AIC yes it's pretty much been in a box in the corner of the basement of college hockey since the program started. But we're missing the point, he could have come from Nowhereville College but if he's played in the NHL he's notable. So the real question is- did he play or not? And the answer is no, Fenton Stats NHL.com- he has no recorded NHL stats. So like the many Jr, minor pro, and college players we delete quite often he's not notable currently however the article can be recreated if he becomes notable in the future (i.e has actual NHL stats, 100+ AHL games, becomes a notable college or pro head coach etc...) Bhockey10 (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about the NHL. One does not need to play games for the NHL to satisfy the GNG. Does anyone actually read this policy? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few of us, thank you; you might do well to practice WP:CIVIL a bit better. As it happens, there are quite a few of us who do not believe Fenton passes the GNG, in so far that coverage stems from a single event, is "routine sports coverage," or comes from sources not deemed to satisfy the GNG. We are quite capable of disagreeing with your interpretation of the relevant policies AND have our own understanding of them.  Ravenswing  17:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't throw CIVIL at me, that's nothing but a red herring. Nothing I've done is uncivil. Anyone who thinks Fenton fails the GNG is sorely mistaken. However, it clearly matters not one iota, so do as you will. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken in thinking an article on NHL.com (hmm, what else do they cover), a blog, and a single AP article surpass GNG. This guy clearly isn't notable except for sitting his ass on the bench for 60 minutes. Grsz 11 16:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An admin may delete this article at their leisure, I'm tired of trying. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly not the attitude to take. Numerous editors have attempted to explain to you the policy basis to this deletion decision. You're WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stance makes it hard to deal with, however. Grsz 11 18:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an adversarial process, and no one's set up a cagefighting ring. We're here to present arguments and debate stances. The part where you're being uncivil is in declaring that no one (other than you) has read the GNG simply because no one agrees with your interpretation. If you have nothing further to contribute to the discussion, no one is forcing you to try.  Ravenswing  18:43, 29 December 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Fenton_(ice_hockey)&oldid=1088287633"