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 It is tough to get a good debate with three such articles, as they all present their own set of circumstances. I strongly advise not to make such nominations again. I've been watching this debate for a few days now, and I've reached to a conclusion that it is impossible to determine consensus for the Dahm article (lol at the damn article :-p), it's there's very rough consensus to keep the Pietrangelo and Corrento articles. Maxim_(talk) 23:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Dahm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Junior hockey player, not professional, nominating for same reason that Stefan Legein was deleted for. Andy Saunders (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pietrangelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Matt Corrente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am nominating Alex Pietrangelo and Matt Corrente for the same reason. Andy Saunders (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Pparazorback (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sebastian Dahm, current non-notable player. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Matt Corrente as he was a first-round draft pick -Pparazorback (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Alex Pietrangelo as he appears to be one of the top prospects for the 2008 entry draft. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment This has the potential to be a trainwreck nom, so perhaps you should seperate them?
  • I do not plan on separating the nominations as all three are junior hockey players who are no more notable, IMHO, than Stefan Legein. Andy Saunders (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is this a point nom then? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Alex Pietrangelo because he is a projected top 3 draft pick and several references can easily be produced to prove his notability. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several references could easily be produced to prove Stefan Legein's notability as well. Andy Saunders (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pietrangelo, projected to be a high draft pick in 2008. There are a fair number of sources about him now, and it will just continue to grow. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Corrente He was already drafted in the 1st round. Plenty of sources to back up information. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dahm He is a talented Danish goalie playing well in a top Canadian junior league. That alone makes him unique. On a broader level, I don't understand the rush to delete articles that may be useful to some. 99% of the articles on Wikipedia are completely irrelevant to me. That doesn't make me go around asking for deletion. Clearly these articles about top junior players are relevant to quite a few even if they are irrelevant to a lot of others. If they were not maintained or otherwise flawed then you could go ahead and delete them. I just think this should be more about inclusion than exclusion. Are we running out of space on this thing? I don't think so. As a comparison, check out the number of players with artcles here: 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup squads. I don't see why for hockey players they only count if they play in the NHL when so many of these soccer players play at a level much lower than the top leagues, even if they are under contract with a pro team. The double standard makes no sense to me and deleting these articles for no other reason is clearly demoralising to those who have contributed to the articles. That to me is much more serious than having a few articles which may be irrelevant to some. AEJ (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dahm. Keep others Dahm has not be drafted and is not projected to be a high draft pick. When and if he ever plays professionally then he will meet WP:N until then he does not meet the notability standards. Its not about being irrelevant like AEJ is suggesting. Notability is not temporary. This comes up every year at this time, people insisting that junior players are notable because of the short burst of attention given to them by the world juniors. Once they have established they are notable on a permanent basis like being drafted in the 1st round or playing a professional game then they will be eligible for a page. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball so just because they will likely be notable in the future doesn't mean they should have a page now. This is a obviously a retaliation nomination and you can't consider every junior player equal. Those already drafted to the first round like Corrente will always be notable because he was a first round draft pick in the NHL which means if he makes the NHL he is notable for that and if he doesn't make the NHL he will be notable for being a bust. -Djsasso (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that this is a retaliatory deletion only goes to prove my point about the level of frustration these deletions brings to otherwise solid wikipedia contributors. As for Dahm, he is about the 5th Danish player ever to play in the CHL and the very first goalie to do so. Does that make him notable? I think so. You still haven't addressed my point about why so many soccer players at a similar age are allowed to have articles. I think it would be reasonable if the 3-4 impact players from every CHL team had articles. We're not talking 4th line players here but impact players. You speak of notability as if it is something far removed from relevancy. I'd say these players are clearly notable to a substantial group of wikipedia users. The guidelines strike me as very arbitrary and they are certainly not used across the board in other sports or other occupations. AEJ (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Hockey project's scope does not venture into soccer, so I do not believe we could adequetly answer your question that you brought forth. However, the project has set it's own notability guidelines to assist in determining who is and who is not notable. Corrente is a first round draft pick, he is clearly notable for this fact. Pietrangelo could be questionable, but we have allowed players who were projected to go in the top few picks to remain. Dahm is not notable, has not been drafted, is not currently projected to go high in the draft, nor has he played professionally. If he gets drafted in the first round, then his article will be able to be re-created. This AFD is not the place to debate Stefan Legein's notability, that was already done here. --Pparazorback (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Personally I think alot of the soccer players should go to, but I don't know enough about the different levels of players in soccer to adequately argue for their deletion. My guess with the difference is that the soccer players get paid and are playing professionally. That is most likely the difference. I wouldn't doubt the large amount of rabid soccer fans that won't let anything soccer be deleted is also a factor. -Djsasso (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I guess it all comes down to a difference in philosophy. I sincerely do not understand this rush to delete content that is clearly useful to a significant number of users, is kept up to date and factually accurate. Whether this is part of a project or not, I still think it goes against the spirit of this place for a small number of people to dictate what is or isn't useful to other users. People who clearly have zero encyclopedic value, fine, delete that, but whenever there is the slightest doubt I think the proper way forward must be 'live and let live'. This tactic of retaliatory deletions should be a serious warning flag wrt overzealously deleting articles. I fail to see the harm in leaving articles such as these.AEJ (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Well one issue with leaving articles on players who aren't really notable is that its a slippery slope. Once you let these type stay then people will use the fact that these ones are staying to add even lower hockey players etc etc. And eventually you will have minor kids who might one day 15 years down the line be notable on here, or you might have beer league players on here. -Djsasso (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Beer leaguers would be easy to recognise and delete. As for young kids, I think it would be easy to distinguish between the ones who get treatment from the media similar to that of Gretzky or Crosby and the rest. Those who get the Gretzky treatment would be worthy of an article imho.AEJ (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Corrente As James says, he was already a 1st round pick. Patken4 (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have added a discussion regarding the notability of projected high draft picks in the NHL Draft at the Ice Hockey talk page. Please feel free to add your viewpoints on how we should approach this. Patken4 (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Corrente per Pparazorback. Neutral on the other two as I am concerned about a WP:POINT issue here. I wish the closing admin luck in determining consensus from three separate debates in one AfD nom. Resolute 20:37, 18 January 2008 (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.