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. Consensus is it fails gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Fardelmann[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Sources on page are not independent and the one that is fails WP:GEOSCOPE, and doing a search no sources could be found that were independent or not routine coverage. Also fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for a woman to meet WP:NHOCKEY? PamD 10:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah playing at the world championships/olympics. Though the olympics is really more NOLYMPICS. -DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as she did not meet the requirements needed for an article about her. Also a woman would be eligible to pass WP:NHOCKEY if she qualifies as a coach or manager and passes the needed requirements. Deadman137 (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Wolfson5 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this athlete played in top-division pro American hockey league. Looks like there are additional references in a basic Google News search. Article could use improved referencing and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except there are not. I went through every single one in Google News. And the vast majority of them are blogs. Those that are not blogs are passing mentions in stories not about her. In no way does she have the sources to meet WP:GNG. If you somehow found some that meet the level of GNG by all means share them. -DJSasso (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you would also consider Blue Shirt Banter, an SB Nation outlet, a "blog" for this particular AFD, but why is it included on men's ice hockey articles and have content partnerships with Yahoo! Sports, CBS Sports, USA Today, Comcast and the National Hockey League (NHL)?

Hmlarson (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Blueshirt banter is a blog. It also fails WP:GEOSCOPE as it is a specific local blog. There is a difference between using it to source a fact and it being good enough to meet the requirements of meeting WP:GNG. I get it you will vote keep on any article that is a woman no matter how much they lack notability. I realize you are very keen on closing the gender gap and I do wish that could be the case. However, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. We would delete a male player that was only sourced to the blueshirt banter blog as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet any criteria at WP:NHOCKEY and lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using GEOSCOPE as a reason to delete is not a valid justification IMO. Nearly all references to sports figures are from local media, for example, Ottawa Citizen for the Ottawa Senators. That doesn't make them unreliable or the topic non-notable for using them. We would have a real issue for many articles and it would call into question the automatic approvals for many players who have not played in North America per NHOCKEY. Alaney2k (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geoscope isn't the reason to delete, the reason to delete is failing to meet GNG. There simply are no sources. -DJSasso (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another problem with this nom is that it references NHOCKEY, which has not been updated to address women's professional ice hockey. Both the US and Canada pro leagues are the top-level for women's pro ice hockey. There should be, at least, a similar provision like that for the minor men's pro hockey leagues of North America, which are very similar in notability to the women's leagues. E.g. played x seasons. So, judging this article and person by that is not really doable. It's not defined, so how can you use it? It's not like it says it's not notable, it's just that NHOCKEY is unusable in this regard. Alaney2k (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NHOCKEY isn't just for professionals, it also takes into account amateurs and coaches etc. It covers all of hockey. Women's professional hockey isn't on there on purpose. It isn't that we forgot to update it, its that there simply isn't coverage for most and there is no easy bright line other than World Championships/Olympics that signify that coverage is likely to exist. In fact I believe we took most of the top players from the last few years (that didn't already meet NHOCKEY/NOLYMPICS) when this came up a few months back and went over all of them looking for sources, and pretty much all of them could not have sources found for them. -DJSasso (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, NHOCKEY is not applicable if it does not cover an article's topic. It would cover women's professionals if it was mentioned. NHOCKEY is merely a shortcut, a presumption of notability, not a definition of notability for any article. Alaney2k (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it does cover the the article's topic (ie women's hockey player). If they are a women's hockey player they have to play at the world championships. Don't forget women's pro players can play for their national teams. 11 players on the current US National team have played in the NWHL. What I think you really mean is you don't like where the level is at. -DJSasso (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fardelmann may or may not fail under WP:GNG; on that, I express no opinion. But WP:GEOSCOPE applies by its plain language only to events. It does not apply to biographies. There is absolutely no prohibition on the use of local/regional sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Coverage in small town papers might properly be discounted somewhat in a rigorous GNG analysis, but feature stories in metropolitan newspapers with full editorial independence are the bread and butter of what most sports biographies are based on. Cbl62 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very regularly sports bios are deleted for being only covered in local papers. Though we usually use the wording of WP:ROUTINE when stating it as opposed to geoscope in the same manor city council members of smaller towns are deleted when they are only covered in their local media. -DJSasso (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:ROUTINE does apply to sports biographies, but it does not contain a prohibition on the use of local coverage to satisfy GNG. Regional/local metropolitan dailies include passing references to athletes, but they also contain significant or in-depth coverage of athletes. The former coverage is ROUTINE, but the latter is not. Cbl62 (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that isn't how its generally taken at Afd or we would have many articles on high school or local junior athletes who get coverage as athlete of the week etc which often includes in depth articles. It is considered routine to cover the local star athlete. Now of course that also varies with the size of the city. Its much different to have an in depth article in a Los Angeles news paper than it is in a Bangor, Maine paper. -DJSasso (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had the same experience at AfD. In general, significant coverage in local and regional media (i.e, coverage focusing on the person as the subject of the article) is considered at most sports AfDs that I've encountered, though admittedly there are some editors (e.g., Masem, Johnpacklambert) who seem to take a more restrictive approach toward local/regional coverage. WP:NHSPHSATH is one of the few places where we have an express limitation on use of local coverage as an exclusionary standard. It is designed to avoid precisely the onslaught of high school athlete bios that you reference. Cbl62 (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2018 (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.