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. — Aitias // discussion 01:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Ruth[edit]

Ted Ruth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Player does not play professionally, has not played at the highest level of amateur hockey (Olympics or World Championships) and does not appear to have won ony major awards. – Nurmsook! talk... 19:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, Ted Ruth currently plays NCAA hockey, which is considered by many to be the highest league in amateur hockey. From the text on Wikipedia regarding notability of hockey player articles:
"Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant"
  • That is considered to mean the olympics or the World Championships, read further. Tavix (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says "usually considered", it doesn't mean always. Savvy10 (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, this article follows the guidelines for a hockey player article. Savvy10 (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect, as there indeed exists a professional league, the National Hockey League. Therefore, there is not a lack of a professional league. Time and time again have NCAA and junior hockey bio articles been deleted. This is no different. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Through lack of a professional hockey league" could be interpreted in different ways: one way is that no professional league exists; the other way is that the player is unable or choosing not to play in a professional league. This would also be a lack of a pro league. Therefore, this still follows the condition stated above. Savvy10 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Smashville from a previous AfD, "We have established various times that non-major award winning college/major junior players are not notable. Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. There is nothing that makes this article any different than the other 34 non-notable articles I just linked." Choosing not to compete in a professional hockey league cannot be interpreted as a lack of a professional league. Am I notable because I choose not to play in the NHL? By your standard every single junior or NCAA hockey player is notable, something that as linked above, has clearly been proved to not be the case. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not notable because as far as we know, you don't play junior hockey. And many of the articles for deletion you listed are errors for various reasons, i.e. they are first round picks, they have won awards. Besides, Ted Ruth was on the Notre Dame hockey team that won the CCHA championship. Also, something not listed in the notability article but still a notable fact is that Ted Ruth was traded for arguably one of the best players. There is an article mentioning Ted Ruth used as a source, something that some of the articles you listed above lacked. Savvy10 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something to note is the fact that a source must be about the subject, not just mention him. The focus of the story has to be that person. -Djsasso (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, he has played at the highest amateur level - not a competition, but a league. Playing at an amateur level goes with WP:ATHLETE.Savvy10 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, the highest level of amateur hockey is the Olympics or World Championships, as has been established time and time again. He has yet to play pro, thus fails WP:ATHLETE. Many pro hockey leagues exist, and so, the "lack of a professional league" clause becomes obsolete for hockey. – Nurmsook! talk... 23:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Level" can be interpreted as competition or league. "Lack of professional league" can be interpreted as pro leagues being nonexistent or pro leagues simply not an option. And several of the deletions for NCAA and junior hockey bio articles were erroneous and should not have happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvy10 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me which ones you believe were erroneously deleted and I will tell you why they were. – Nurmsook! talk... 23:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pageau, Legein, and Rai are the three that come to me first. Pageau seems to be the most obvious error. There are others as well as those three. Savvy10 (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting choices. I don't see why you feel they should have articles. Rai has never played professionaly, wasn't drafted in the first round, and hasn't won any major awards. Legin's article was deleted on December 29, 2007; at that point he hadn't played professionally, hadn't been drafted in the first round, and hadn't won any major awards. He has since played pro and that article would easily pass an AfD if it were recreated. As for Pageau, he's the same reason as Rai. Why did you feel these should not have been deleted? They clearly all fail notability (or at least did at the time of deletion, and still do aside from Legin). – Nurmsook! talk... 23:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, Pageau won two silver medals at the Ontario Minor Hockey League championships. Those are pre-eminent honors, and people falling under that category can have articles under WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Savvy10 (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you read that? It clearly states "in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as the Ontario Hockey Association or the Western Hockey League or in a major collegiate hockey league". Those are semi-pro, collegiate, and junior leagues, not a minor hockey league. You do realize that the Ontario Minor Hockey League is the league in which kids play, right? Suddenly you're including youth as notable in your argument, and there are about half a million youth playing hockey in Canada alone. Suddenly you're arguing that simply winning a medal in minor hockey makes one notable. I don't think so. If this is the case, a whole lot of 6 to 18-year old hockey players are going to be getting articles. – Nurmsook! talk... 02:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of youth athlete articles that are on Wikipedia, and some of those kids haven't even won anything. The fact that Pageau has played in a top youth league and has won pre-eminent honors should make him more notable than these kids and therefore should have been kept. Savvy10 (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HOCKEY/PPF clearly indicates the level required to fulfil pre-eminent honors. Minor hockey awards do not meet that by a ten foot pole. I offer you a challenge. Find me an article of a hockey player that is under 17 years old. I can most definately count the amount on one hand, and the only reason those will have one is because they one a major junior hockey award. Regardless, I can see you won't be changing your view, which is fair. You are titled to an opinion. I just want to point out that Wikipedia is like the British judicial system. It's simply a series of precident that evolves. And as can be seen in the 34 articles above (and there are a LOT more), this article does not pass WP:N. It's simple. He has not played pro, and he hasn't played at the highest amateur level. He fails WP:N. – Nurmsook! talk... 17:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the NCAA is inferior to the OHL. Grsz11 05:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a matter of opinion. In organization, the NCAA is not actually beneath the OHL because it's not involved with OHL, or any part of the CHL. Therefore, either one of these could be considered the top league and there would be no way to distinguish which one is because the CHL and the NCAA do not involve each other at all. Savvy10 (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one could take the number of Canadian trained vs US trained players in the NHL into consideration, noting that a decent number of US players played amateur in Canada. But that's besides the point. The point is WP:ATHLETE applies to the highest amateur competition no matter what country the individual is from. For ice hockey, this is a world competition or the Olympics. For college football, NCAA is the highest amateur competition, but it varies from sport to sport. Ice hockey, no. Grsz11 16:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Highest amateur level is usually considered to be the Olympics. However, it could also be considered the CHL or NCAA hockey. Savvy10 (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And in the case of hockey, huge amounts of precedence indicates this is not one of those cases. In fact hockey was one of the sports which caused the wording to be changed to make it clear it was the world championships and olympics. -Djsasso (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Highest amateur level is usually considered to be the Olympics. However, it could also be considered the CHL or NCAA hockey. Savvy10 (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And in the case of hockey, huge amounts of precedence indicates this is not one of those cases. In fact hockey was one of the sports which caused the wording to be changed to make it clear it was the world championships and olympics. The usually refers to sports like football that don't have a world championship or olympic involvement. -Djsasso (talk) 20:19, 24 December 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.
More