Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Andersen

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Andersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played a handful of seasons in the low minors. Ravenswing 06:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and a search for sources to meet GNG has turned up empty. -DJSasso (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Redirect to 1973–74 New York Islanders season#Draft picks. Played two seasons (132 games) with the Fort Worth Wings which at the time was the top farm team of the Detroit Red Wings. Including his play in the WCHL, he played over 200 games in fully professional hockey leagues. Note: When this ice hockey bio article was created it clearly met the criteria for inclusion under NHOCKEY for playing over 100 games in fully professional leagues. Recently, however, the NHOCKEY bar has been raised, and this nominator has been on a tear to delete articles which now may fall short of the newly raised bar. The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting in the last four days alone) makes it impossible to fully research all of the articles to prove they meet GNG. Expecting any editor to properly research this large number of articles for GNG sources is not realistic or fair, especially when one considers that many of these AfDs require searching pre-Internet sources. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As you well know, NHOCKEY's criteria have never held "100 pro games" as an acceptable standard, and the CHL was explicitly stated as being at Criterion #4, which requires a player to have achieved "preeminent honors" -- to wit, being a top ten career scorer or making the First All-Star Team. That criterion hasn't changed, even if Wikipedia policy holds that articles would be "grandfathered" when notability criteria were tightened, which is not and never has been the case.

  As far as the alleged difficulties involved in finding acceptable BLP sources from the pre-Internet era, I have two thoughts. The first is, nonsense: I've adequately sourced articles from century-old newspaper accounts available on the Internet. The second is, irrelevant: there is a curious school of thought on Wikipedia which claims that if there's some excuse for why adequate sources can't be produced, the requirements of WP:V and the GNG are suspended. This is completely false: as WP:V explicitly holds, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it," and that "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source."

  That being said, as many as a hundred articles go to AfD every day, and no one expects any editor to research all of them on the spot; happily, since these are Wikipedia's articles, and do not "belong" to any one editor, there's no onus on any one person to do so. What is seriously disruptive is creating so many BLP articles without even a cursory attempt at proper sourcing. Perhaps, rather than creating yet more NN sub-stubs, you could turn your attention to that. Ravenswing 07:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you should know if you wish to speak intelligently on the subject, the Central Hockey League (1963-1984) was the top minor league in North America during the era when Denis Andersen played (just as the AHL is today), and that league is not associated in any way with the current CHL which is a lower minor league. The fact that WP:NHOCKEY/LA lists the old CHL as a “Lower-level league” is a serious flaw in the list, which should lead one to question what objective criteria was used to compile such list, if any. Dolovis (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You've made that argument before; consensus ran unanimously against you. (Although you're also contradicting your own argument, as you've repeatedly maintained that the current CHL is on a par with the ECHL and the AHL as a "top-level" minor league. Which is your real position, please?) Ravenswing 00:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2014 (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.