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. There are a lot of keep votes but they all are asserting notability without reference to policy. Its clear the player doesn;t pass HOCKEY so GNG is the only basis we will accept notability. The sources provided clearly have neen refuted and a local consensus cannot overturn the site wide consensus of where our inclusion threashold is. Either plays and meets HOCKEY or someone writes some in deopth coverage of him. At that point he meets our policies but until then his is just below the threashold and gets deleted. I'm very happy tio undelete on the spot as soon as the coverage or gametime is there. Spartaz Humbug! 03:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Having slept on the close and rewviewed the discussion on sourcing on my talk page [1] I'm reclosing this as No consensusSpartaz Humbug! 04:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John McFarland (ice hockey)[edit]

John McFarland (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)

Junior player who has yet to play professionally or meet any of the conditions of WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if the subject acheives notability. I do acknowledge his being the first pick overall in the OHL, however that is not notable as many people picked in that position have never amounted to anything. WP:CRYSTAL. Since it was a disputed prod claiming it that the player won a major award. The Jack Ferguson Award is not a major award, not every award given by a league is major. The major awards are MVP, Top Defence, Top Goalie, First All-Star team. (generic names to apply to any league). An award given to someone drafted first is none of those things. DJSasso (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Jack Ferguson Award is a major award. There is no consensus that a "major award" as given out by ice hockey leagues is limited to "MVP", "Top Defence", "Top Goalie", and "First All-Star team" as you have stated in your deletion nominations here and here. By making such a bold statement without claiming it to be your personal opinion, you have implied that your statement is a fact (i.e. support by a consensus) - but it is not as it is only your opinion. Please state your personal opinions as your opinions, and do not attempt to mislead others into thinking that this is an issue that has already been decided by consensus. I suggest that you strike your bold statements and rephrase them as your opinion. Dolovis (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus that the Jack Ferguston Award is a major award, so it would appear that that is just your opinion as well. Does anyone have any evidence that it is either a major or minor award? My own opinion is that it would be a minor award, as it appears to be awarded solely on the basis of who was drafted first that year (as opposed to being awarded on the basis of being a good player, scoring a lot of goals, i.e. actually doing something), and it is not even a national award (it's only for the Ontario Hockey League), and it is only awarded to teenagers. One thing you may be confused about is that when WP:ATHLETE says "major award", it is meant as a major award in the context of the sport as a whole, not in the context of the league in question. So, while the JF award may be a major award for the OHL, it is almost certainly not a major award in the context of the entire sport of hockey. SnottyWong babble 23:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussions for creating the NHockey guidelines, major award was discussed as being the equivalents in various leagues of the big 3 in the NHL. Hart, Norris, Vezina. Which my comments are in line with. So before you go spouting off that I am stating opinion and not consensus maybe do a bit of research. -DJSasso (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And just to be fair and get an up to date consensus I will bring it up at the project so that its crystal clear. -DJSasso (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you are justifying keeping the article because he was drafted by the NHL, WP:NHOCKEY inclusion criteria #5 says notability is achieved if the player was selected in the first round of the NHL draft. The subject was a second round selection. Is it probable that he will eventually achieve notability, I would say yes, however currently that opinion is trumped by WP:CRYSTAL. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The hockey project already has its consensus that NHL First round draft picks are notable. That line had to be drawn somewhere. I do not see anything that claims that the Jack Ferguson Award is one of the "Achieved preeminent honors" criteria, which are "all-time top ten career scorer, regular season or playoff MVP, first team all-star, All-American". He fails WP:NHOCKEY (#4) at this time. If that award establishes notability, why is there not articles on Patrick Jarrett (2000 Winner), John Uniac (1987 Winner) or Dave Moylan (1984 Winner). -Pparazorback (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dolovis I don't think you understand how WP:NHOCKEY works. Meeting any of the criteria does not guarantee an article, its just a guideline to when a player is likely to meet GNG. You always have to meet the GNG. Its not a case of this player got an award so the GNG doesn't matter anymore, what it means is that, hey this player won an award so he probably has articles about him out there so go find them. I think you significantly misunderstand how NHOCKEY and GNG work. Players who don't meet the criteria can still have an article if they meet the GNG and players who meet NHOCKEY can still have an article deleted if they don't meet the GNG. The reason we use the first round as a cut off line is that someone who is drafted in the first round is significantly more likely to meet the GNG than someone drafted in the second round. NHOCKEY is not a free pass to not having to find sources, every article has to have sources. Even an NHL player. And the burden on proof is on the people calling for a keep to prove they exist and add them to the article. -DJSasso (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DJSasso, I do understand how NHOCKEY works. I also know that the burden is on the nominator to first look for sources. You obviously didn't, because the are many reliable and independent sources to be easily found. The reason that a "major award" is a criteria is because it assures us that such sources are to be found if we look. The Jack Ferguson Award is such a major award, and thus I will be able to find the sources to justify the article under WP:GNG. As I know you will not put in the effort, I will put together a list of reliable and independent sources which I will post here before the end of tomorrow (unless some other kind soul is able to do it for me before then). Until then, I hope that independent thought and common sense starts to take hold in this AfD. Dolovis (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I'll find 20 reliable and significant sources to demonstrate he passes WP:GNG if I have too, but that should not be necessary because he already passes WP:NHOCKEY" indicates you don't because you are outright saying you shouldn't have to find sources because he passes NHOCKEY. If you don't provide them it doesn't matter if he passes NHOCKEY because he fails WP:V which is the other criteria required. There is no burden on the nominator but a good faith assumption that the nominator will do so, as I did do. And there was nothing to be found but press releases, game summaries, passing mentions and general WP:ROUTINE coverage, none of which add up to meeting the GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read any of these? Most of these are just passing mention of him lumped in with many others or they are blogs such as yahoo sports and bleacher report. Your labels on them make it look like the articles are about him, when in many of them they are not. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I knew Djsasso would say that, but what he says is not true and my labels are accurate descriptions. To dismiss all such references out-of-hand demonstrates that Djsasso's mind is closed. I challenge Djsasso to give his analysis for each of the above twenty references so that we can have an insightful debate about the merits of each. Dolovis (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than willing to consider sources, but this list looks like you just grabbed the first 20 that came up. I will read them and analize them. I can say right off the bat the first one is as routine as you can get. A news organization anouncing a draft pick which they would do no matter who the person is. That reference isn't even close to being "in significant detail". It will take a bit for me to write up about the others. -DJSasso (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 is an article about every player the panthers drafted and only is a passing mention on him. (Not even close to 5 paragraphs, closer to 5 sentences)
  • 3 is a blog.
  • 4 is a single sentence mentioning who the tournament MVP is.
  • 5 is a blog.
  • 6 is about the trade and not primarily about him.
  • 7 is again talking about the trade and not primarily about him.
  • 8 is also passing mentions in an article about 17 year olds making the team.
  • 9 is not about him at all and is a game summery.
  • 10 is a passing mention that again does not cover him in significant detail.
  • 11 same as #10, just mentions he is part of the team.
  • 12 is an article about players being added to the team and is not primarily about him.
  • 13 is a primary source press release.
  • 14 is again talking about the trade and not primarily about him.
  • 15 is an Op-Ed which is not a reliable source
  • 16 is a blog.
  • 17 is a blog.
  • 18 is the same source as #1
  • 19 is a blog.
  • 20 is a single sentence saying he'd been named captain of a team in listing of news wire tidbits. So not even close to significant detail.
There. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, your superficial and self-serving "analysis" is inaccurate and is less-than useless. As an admin you should have read WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:SIGCOV which states that “Newspaper and magazine blogs are acceptable as sources” and “significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material”. I suggest that you simply state your argument as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and then get out of the way so that other editors have there say. Dolovis (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of newsblog. I do not see that those blogs are under editorial control. Its very rare that they are. And this isn't even remotely an I don't like it arguement. It's a source it arguement. You should probably read these various terms you throw out there. I am not remotely saying I don't like the article, I think its a decent short article, I also think he is likely to pass the bar in the future and at such time the article can be restore/recreated. At this moment I don't see enough to show his notability. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(added since dolovis changed his comment after my reply) "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" is the key, mentioning someone was part of a trade for example but then not going on to talk about that person in detail beyond their point total or whatever is not significant and is a trivial mention. You can't write a biography from two sentences that mention who they are, their position and their point total which is the whole point of ensuring that the coverage is significant. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with DJSasso on his interpretation of these sources, and will add that Bleacher Report should never be considered a reliable source. The Yahoo! and THN blogs have more clout as it is affiliated with a major media company, but overall, I'm not seeing significant coverage here. Resolute 19:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that WP:NHOCKEY says "players are presumed notable if...". No part of that guideline says that if a player doesn't meet the options in NHOCKEY, then any claim to notability is annulled, overruling GNG. (And if the wording of NHOCKEY ever did try to overrule GNG in that way, I'd correct it myself). bobrayner (talk) 20:10, 28 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.
More