This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Ice Hockey This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles

Are we sure about the Swiss National League being ranked where it is? If we are talking about equivalents, it seems strange that we have a group of peers competing at the Spengler Cup (with the Swiss team often winning), but ranking them so low in this somewhat arbitrary tiering of notability. Canada Hky (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, only quibble I would have is to move Swiss league up a level to minor pro and moving Norwegian league down to lower level. Patken4 (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on both as well. I'd love to revisit the 100 game threshold for minor-pro as well since it is a ridiculously low bar, but that is outside the scope of this proposal. Resolute 22:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also would agree that the Swiss league is too low. Its at least on par, and arguably better, than the DEL. And if you factor in that many of the players in the league have played in the NHL or were notable in lower leagues, it should be enough to move it up. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was thinking the Swiss league and probably the DEL league should be up a level as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The placement is entirely my take on things; I expect consensus would move some leagues up or down, and I'm comfy with that. No objection to either change. Ravenswing 03:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, thinking about it some more, I would probably drop the ECHL down to the lower level also. The majority of coverage players are likely to receive at that level will be local/routine in nature. The exceptions will always be able to rely on GNG. Resolute 20:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is reached to just list the leagues for which notability of its players is presumed to be verifiable, then I suggest that the categorization of leagues in WP:NHOCKEY can be removed (for example, criteria 1 to 3 can be collapsed into one: "Played one or more games in the following leagues: ..."). This will save on arguing about the classification, which is after all just an indirect indicator: the key question is whether or not playing in the league is a reliable predictor of the existence of sufficient significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources. isaacl (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Sorry, but that's just a backhanded way to disenfranchise any non 'highest level' league, and the consensus hasn't been there for that. There's nothing about the concept of presumptive notability that's fractured by stating that a player in X League is almost certainly notable, a player in Y League is probably notable if he's played enough, and a player in Z League is very unlikely to be notable unless he was an all-time great in that loop. Ravenswing 03:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I should have clarified that categorization can be eliminated where the other criteria are the same. Thus I was mistaken in my example: items 1 and 2 can be combined, while item 3 would continue to have a different requirement on the number of games. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent: I thought you wanted to generate an exhaustive list of leagues for each item. If the list is exhaustive, then I don't see a need to worry about if a league is a top professional league or not; the only thing that matters is that playing for all of the leagues under the "one game" criterion is an accurate predictor of meeting the notability standard, that playing for all of the leagues under the "100 games" criterion is an accurate predictor of meeting the notability standard, and so forth. The descriptions "top professional", "amateur", and "fully professional minor" aren't necessary. isaacl (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really true, we have 3 different levels in NHOCKEY that leagues must meet. There are the leagues that meet the 1 game situation, leagues that meet the 100 game situation, and games that only get major honor players. The descriptions are a bit off, they should probably just be labeled for the criteria they meet. -DJSasso (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like its been changed since I had last read so they already do apply more to the level of the criteria they meet. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I didn't enumerate all the levels, as I assumed it was understood the same levels as now would be preserved. I'm not sure where you ended up; do you agree that there can be three items for each of the three levels, as follows:

  1. Played one or more games in one of the following leagues: ...
  2. Played at least 100 games in one of the following leagues: ...
  3. Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in one of the following leagues: ...

  The descriptions just lead to arguments about what leagues should fit them, when the focus should be on evaluating the quality of reliable sources covering the players in the league. isaacl (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Eliminating those arguments is exactly the point of this League Assessment. Ravenswing 13:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, so once an exhaustive list of leagues is established, the descriptions are no longer necessary. isaacl (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I would keep the descriptions, and just link to the list in place of the examples. That way the only change to the criteria is that we list the examples differently now and prevents the likelihood of arguing about a league not being professional like Ravenswing mentions below. -DJSasso (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the descriptions will still lead to superfluous discussion; editors should not be evaluating if a league is fully professional, but whether or not a player who has met the participation level (or other criteria) for a given league is likely to have the degree of coverage required to meet Wikipedia's standard of inclusion. I understand the desire to keep a categorization, so there is an everyday meaning associated with the objective standard of games/level of achievement, but I think it is more trouble than it is worth. (This discussion is an example of how the descriptions are a distraction from the key question of the degree of coverage.) isaacl (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that people who know nothing about the sport will start questioning why amateur teams are listed with professional teams. On this page we probably don't need to mention if the teams are amateur or professional. But on the NHOCKEY page I think we most definitely need to have a criteria #1 and criteria #2 so that it clearly lays out why those leagues meet the criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The hockey-specific notability guideline can remind readers that the criteria are based on the presumption of appropriate coverage and not the status of the league. There are currently a few editors who question why players for professional leagues are automatically assumed to meet Wikipedia's standard for inclusion. By shifting to an exhaustive list of leagues, this objection becomes obsolete, and referring to the professional level of the league is moot. isaacl (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand what you are saying, and in an ideal world that would be great, but we both know that people will still question it over and over. So by leaving it worded as is and then adding in the new list we remove the questions. By simply merging it we add more questioning and thus more wasted time. (ironically like this debate) -DJSasso (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Issacl, the objection to a one-size-fits-all is simple: either you go to a one-game-qualifies standard, in which case you've just (for instance) accorded presumptive notability to anyone who's played a single game for the Pinebridge Bucks or the Flin Flon Bombers -- to which I'm sure damn near everyone would object -- or you have a draconian list which disqualifies the minors, major junior or the collegiate leagues altogether, to which a great many people would object (myself included). In either case, consensus wouldn't be reached. Ravenswing 01:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Note my example is not one-size-fits-all; I've explicitly listed the same three criteria levels as currently exists. isaacl (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Ahhh ... I see what you're striking for; my apologies, I'm being slow. You're looking, rather than have a separate page, to have these lists of leagues folded directly into the NHOCKEY criteria.

  We can't. FOOTY's league listing is an essay, not an official guideline, and I think that's what we need to have here. The NSPORTS criteria generally are pretty subjective, but this list is quite subjective, and an essay is about the level we can get away with declaring. Ravenswing 12:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, that's not the key aspect of my proposal; the criteria could still point to another page for the list of leagues. For example, they could be written something like this:

  1. Meets one of the following criteria, where category A, B, and C leagues are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment:
     1. Played one or more games in a category A league;
     2. Played at least 100 games in a category B league;
     3. Achieved pre-eminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a category C league;

  The descriptions aren't needed anymore, since a complete list of leagues is being provided for each standard, and I think having them will result in editors continuing (as they do today) to argue about whether or not a league is fully professional, rather than discussing if players in a given league have sufficient notable coverage, regardless of the professional status of the league.

  Regarding achieving an overall consensus for the lists of leagues, as you probably have already seen, WikiProject Baseball is discussing a list of eligible leagues on WT:NSPORTS. I think it should be quite manageable for WikiProject Ice Hockey to do the same. isaacl (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that this list will never be more than an essay. As such the criteria itself has to be understandable on its own as if this list didn't exist. Without the descriptions you lose that. The soccer one for example clearly indicates it needs to be fully professional to pass. Thier list is just an essay on what some believe fully professional to mean. -DJSasso (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I do agree that Criteria #1 and #2 describe the same level, but when originally drafting them, I split them out because of the traditional standard of NSPORTS: that of playing in a "fully professional" league. Hockey, by contrast, has a history of amateur leagues that nonetheless were the highest level of competition available for major hockey powers -- the AHA, the Soviet League, the ECAHA, the Czechoslovak league -- and I didn't want those loops to get whacked with huffy "Well, they weren't fully professional comments. Ravenswing 13:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little tweaking based on some of the comments. One of the things I didn't do was add the Ukrainian league, which is only a couple years old and is marred by considerable instability: having several teams fold from last year, including the league champions, doesn't bode well. The question I have now is whether we can sign off on this and add the link to NHOCKEY?

• Support: as creator. Ravenswing 23:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and thanks for undertaking. Hwy43 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though I still prefer to drop the ECHL down. It is out of place among the level 2 leagues as the rest of the American leagues in that section were unquestionably the highest level of minor professional hockey. The ECHL is not. Resolute 16:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, I missed that. The ECHL is the minors of the minors and is therefore not the highest level of minor pro hockey. I agree and would like to see it dropped down too. Hwy43 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My only two cents to throw in here would be regarding the distinction between "fully professional" and "lower minor" - while the ECHL and the Central Hockey League certainly are not the same caliber of play (or coverage) as the AHL, they are in fact "fully professional" - all three leagues are represented by the PHPA, and their players are full-time professional hockey players. I would view the "minors of the minors" as the SPHL and possibly the FHL. Is there a better way to distinguish the "high minors" (maybe "top-level minor league") in a way that doesn't create an erroneous distinction?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 17:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, Ukraine is on stabler footing now that the ill-fated Professional Hockey League has met its demise and the championship has been placed back under the auspices of the national federation. I will however support this (albeit grudgingly) if the Eishockey-Bundesliga and DDR-Oberliga are moved up a level from where they're currently ranked. Their positions are blatantly low as it stands now. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were they? Remember, these criteria do not define notability. If sufficient reliable sources cannot be found to presume that most players in those leagues meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the articles should be deleted, and frankly, the leagues would be placed to high here. Resolute 16:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. One change that could be made is move the Austrian league up a level since it looks like it will have teams in the 2014–15 Champions Hockey League. Other than that possible change, I'm happy with it. Patken4 (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Most tweaks made, with the exception of this one; I'm not yet sold that the Champions League makeup is a definitive sign of league quality, as opposed to politics -- one would think, for instance, that the inclusion of the top Slovakian clubs would be a no-brainer. Any notion why we're not seeing Russian clubs? Ravenswing 16:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fine for Austria. To be honest, I was surprised Austria was included in the new league but Slovakia wasn't. Patken4 (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now that desired changes have been implemented. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Sorry to be coming in so late, but I only just found this curious little discussion after it was raised at WP:NSPORTS. Resolute's Ravenswing's essay containing a list of ice hockey leagues sorted by level of play is incomplete and subjective. While I agree that a list of ice hockey league's could be useful for the purpose of establishing a presumption pf notability (I suggested the idea about three years ago, only to be rebuffed by the Ice Hockey Project), the purpose of Resolute's essay has not been fully discussed. Now that the five of you have worked out a framework, it might be time to bring Resolute's essay out of the closet so it can be fully discussed, for both purpose and content, by all interested editors. Dolovis (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolute's essay? Also, this began at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, where you are quite active. Hwy43 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I didn't start this dude. But I am not remotely surprised that you are crying about it since it has the benefit of forcing you to put more effort into your editing. Also, Ravenswing did bring it up at WT:HOCKEY, so you really have no excuse for not having seen it before. Resolute 02:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the seven people who participated on this talk page over the past 10 days collectively hold the expert knowledge necessary to create the definitive ranking of all current and defunct ice hockey leagues throughout all-time, it is nonetheless woefully incomplete (see List of ice hockey leagues which in-itself is incomplete), and completely subjective based on nothing more than personal opinion and original research. Dolovis (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article, so your attempted wikilaywering doesn't count for anything. The good news for you, Dolovis, is that you remain perfectly free to create articles on players in unlisted leagues if they meet GNG. Resolute 04:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what is it, Dolovis? On the one hand, you want a horde of editors to come in before you'll sign off on it? On the other, you screech about people not having the "expert knowledge" to pull this off? I'd invite you to make up your mind, but that presumes we need your approval to go forward, which we do not. Honestly, I can see how it is you've earned permanent topic bans and page move bans; you really display marked contempt for any policy, guideline or consensus with which you disagree.

The funny thing is that since you're knowledgeable in European hockey, you'd have been one of the ones whose unbiased input would have been useful ... but at this point, I just don't feel your good faith can be assumed. Ravenswing 08:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be some discussion of the available sources covering the players in each league, in order to demonstrate that meeting the criterion in each case is a reliable predictor of meeting Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. isaacl (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First of all, if you are trying to start a definitive list which ranks the World's hockey leagues, it is important to start by establishing objective criteria on which the list will be based. NHOCKEY uses the terms “top professional league” (existing or defunct), “highest level of competition extant”, “fully professional minor league”, and “lower minor league”; and it is those terms which need to be objectively defined before we start to build a list.

This list is intended to be inclusive of all the existing and defunct hockey leagues world-wide, which is quite an undertaking, which is why NHOCKEY chose to use the words “such as” followed by examples. Ravenwing's list hopes to add to such examples, but to do so we must first form a consensus to define what those NHOCKEY terms mean, and then form a consensus as to what leagues meet those definitions.

The independent source HockeyDB[1] has categorized pro hockey leagues in North America as “Major League”, “Minor Professional” and “Semi-Professional”, and hockey leagues in Europe as “European Elite” or “European Non-Elite”, with amateur categories being “Senior Amateur”, “Major Junior”, “College/University”, and other junior leagues. There may be other sources we can look at to verify these distinctions. One might simply follow the standards set by HockeyDB (Major League and European Elite = “top professional league”; Minor Professional = "fully professional minor league"; and European Non-Elite, Senior Amateur, Major Junior, and College/University = "lower minor league". I understand that such a solution is too simplistic, and I am using it as an example only to demonstrate that objective sources exist, with my point being that we need to establish an objective and verifiable starting point towards creating our definitive list.

Whether or not you agree with HockeyDB is not the issue. My point is that HockeyDB's list is independent and can be utilized objectively. There are other independent sources that might also be used to build the NHOCKEY list (such as hockey leagues by average salary or by attendance levels, as I am confident that such information would be available from independent sources). IIHF qualifies nations for world championships, which may provide an objective standard for top hockey playing countries (i.e. top leagues”), however using IIHF standings as a guide will see nations come and go as top competitors depending on the years being considered (and how wide the net is thrown); on the other hand, it has been often argued that “top league” refers to the top league within a given country. This understanding of the term is given more weight when one looks at Criteria #2 which reads “Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant”. If such is the understanding of the term (and I am not saying I am an adherent of such a view) then all nations with an organized hockey program, professional or not, would qualify to have a “top league”.

One would think that the easiest term to define would be “fully professional minor league” (either the league is “fully professional or its not), leaving the remaining minor leagues as the “lower minor leagues”, however even this term, which can/should be determined objectively, is being argued on the basis of subjective opinion.

Given that this is a busy holiday weekend, I simply do not have the time to put together right now (quests have arrived) an alternate proposal of what leagues might fit the definitions of “top professional league”, “highest level of competition extant”, “fully professional minor leagues”, and “lower minor league”. I hope that I will soon be able to put some further words together towards such a proposal. But I want to post this writing now (before I have fully formed my arguments) to bring to the attention of the ice hockey project that there are independent sources that should be utilized to objectively create a definitive list. Dolovis (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't waste your time, Dolovis. You know as well as anyone else here that most players in lower minor leagues do not have the reliable source coverage to presume notability. The only reason you want more leagues listed at the higher levels is so that you can continue to be lazy and create sub-stubs using the pathetically low "played 100 games" criteria rather than by actually researching to see if such players are notable. The end result is that you litter Wikipedia with crap and the rest of us are forced to waste time and effort cleaning up after you. So count this as a blanket oppose of any proposal you come up with to try and modify these criteria. They are, bluntly, still too loose as it is. Resolute 01:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources I located which could prove useful in further evaluating the placement of the European leagues: An IIHF article with information on attendance across the various Euro leagues during the 2012-13 season, The IIHF's ranking of the top 30 leagues prior to the start of the 2008-09 Champions Hockey League season, and A piece done by The Hockey Writers ranking the 10 best leagues worldwide.--Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 03:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, notability on Wikipedia is defined by coverage in reliable sources. League rankings mean squat as it relates to coverage of individual players. If you can demonstrate that enough reliable source coverage exists such that we can presume a player who appeared in a certain league (or played a certain number of games at a certain level) will have that coverage, then this discussion can move forward. Resolute 04:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis, there are no independent sources which rank how much press coverage individual players in individual leagues get. This is the problem. You continually confuse the level of the league (ie quality of play, attendance, salary etc) with the level of coverage its players get in the media. This is only about how likely a player is to get multiple news stories about them in multiple papers in multiple locations. As with all of NHOCKEY, its about 99.999% of players that meet that specific criteria should be able to meet GNG. Which is very clearly not the case with the hundreds of stubs you litter the wiki with. -DJSasso (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about using the player wiki articles to assess the presumed notability the league infers upon its players? If a page is created for a player based upon the current presumed notability criteria and the page is later deleted due to an inability to meet GNG then the league classification needs to be lowered. This would ensure that the resulting league assessment is self correcting and minimize the number of stub articles with little chance of being expanded upon. 69.159.30.166 (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, Dolovis, but you've spent so much time wikilawyering and outright lying that pretty much any advocacy you'd deliver is suspect. Claiming that this list is suspect because I created it, while claiming that the NHOCKEY list (which I likewise created) is good and virtuous? Errr ... no: if my judgment (supported by the consensus of the WikiProject) was good several years ago, what's suddenly made it (or that of the other editors) bad now, other than you being willfully disruptive?

Likewise in proclaiming the HockeyDB an "independent" and "objective" list. You know, don't you, that HockeyDB's assessment = Ralph Slate's assessment, right? Now we certainly rely heavily on Ralph's indefatigable work, but when all is said and done, he's a hockey fan from western Massachusetts with time on his hands and no particular special credentials beyond having been a SIHR member ... all of which, come to that, describes me as well as him. Ravenswing 19:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support proposal. This has been needed for some time recently due to far to much wikilawyering and attempts at end runs around the policy by Dolovis. So because some editors can't seem learn to abide by consensus and policy when they disagree with it we thus need to tighten it up to avoid ambiguity and cut the wikilawyering off at the knees. -DJSasso (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Just going back to what was our, I think, original discussion about notability. First, there are still a few of us from the first discussion about this still around from almost seven years ago, so congrats to those still here. Second, it looks like even then we questioned why 100 games/three seasons was being considered as the minimum requirement for the ECHL (and it seems most of us agree with that, both then and now). I know the criteria has evolved a bit since then, but it is similar to what Ravenswing originally proposed. I can't find where we discussed putting criteria to specific leagues as we are now, but I know we have had the discussions many times before. I may even proposed it at some point. Patken4 (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, there are a few of us still active: you, me, Djsasso, Resolute, Kaiser. Not so bad. Ravenswing 16:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support proposal. I'll always support the reduction of ambiguity wherever I can.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 17:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Having a list is help clear's things up. It seems to me that too much time is wasted on AFDs on stub pages, which having a clearly defined pecking order should help reduce some ambiguity. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 01:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most obvious errors in the list concerns the Central Professional Hockey League (renamed the Central Hockey League with the 1968–69 season). To rank this league as a “lower level league” is ludicrous. This fully professional league was owned by the NHL, and the teams in this league were the top farm teams of the NHL clubs. In its day its players were of a calibre above those who played in the AHL or IHL. Dolovis (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please show evidence that one can presume that multiple, non-trival reliable sources exist to cover players who appeared in that league. Resolute 18:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a patently ridiculous response to my factual comment. Are you willing or able to show evidence that one can presume that multiple, non-trival reliable sources exist to cover players who appeared in any of the so deemed "fully professional minor leagues"? I will put this challenge to you: Just show us that you can show such evidence for players of the Mestis. Dolovis (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again, instead of actually doing the work you try to spin the situation. If you think 99% of players that have played only 100 games in this league will have sources, then it should be easy for you to go out and prove it by finding sources for a large number of players who played 100 games in that league. It should be even easier for you than the Mestis since its an English league. Such evidence for those leagues that were already listed in the guideline has been shown in the past, that is why they were specifically listed in the guideline already. -DJSasso (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly Dolovis, I doubt the Mestis generates the coverage to warrant the presumption we give it. Since you are also questioning whether the Mestis generates enough coverage, should I take your comment as a proposal to drop it to the third tier? Resolute 21:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly Resolute, the questions you are asking are not even relevant to the list you are trying to create. The answers you should be trying to answer concerning the Metis and the other leagues within that section of the list is "Was/is the league a fully professional league or not." And before try to answer that question, you must first agree upon the definition for a "fully professional league". Dolovis (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know as well as anyone else that these criteria are based on at what point we can expect non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources to exist. I'll admit that the current headers for the three levels are very poor since notability is about sourcing rather than assumed level of play. We can fix that by changing the section headers, not engaging in tedious arguments designed to try and weasel your way around Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Resolute 01:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong, Dolovis. The league was not owned by the NHL throughout its history, and since notability is not inherited, even if true that fact alone would not confer notability. Some of the teams were top farm teams, for some of their histories; the majority weren't. Placing the CPHL/CHL on a lower tier is not an "error" -- it involved setting a higher standard than you like, and your categorization of doing so as "ludicrous" just goes to highlight your tendency to disparage any position with which you disagree. Ravenswing 20:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply only displays your ignorance of hockey history. I suggest that you read a few more books and spend some time researching through old newspaper articles to acquire at least a better than superficial knowledge of hockey history before you try to lead a discussion where your knowledge of the subject is elementary at best. Dolovis (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that would display your ignorance of hockey history. The league was completely independent of the NHL. However, some of the teams were owned by NHL teams. But that is semantics because during the six team years all the teams were owned by NHL teams so you could technically say it was owned by the NHL, although legally it was a separate entity. -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing semantics. The CPHL was established the summer of 1963 under the direction of the NHL who fully sponsored the start-up league. Dolovis (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. CHL teams (the 1960s-1984 version) were affiliated with NHL parents at various points as Ravenswing notes. It is debatable if it could be called an equivalent to the AHL, however. Regardless, we still require evidence that we can presume notability for players who appeared in this CHL but didn't make the NHL. Resolute 16:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using your same argument, I presume that you are prepared to supply the “require evidence” for each of the other leagues which is included as “fully professional” on your list? Dolovis (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why, are you challenging that they are? If so, I expect that you're dropping this business at once, because since of course you don't want to violate WP:POINT, you couldn't possibly assert that the CHL has greater notability than the AHL, the latter days IHL or the Allvenskan. Ravenswing 21:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem some NHL/WHA teams used the CHL as their farm team and some used AHL as their farm team during the 1960's and 1970's. If I'm reading [2] correctly, it tells us what minor league teams that the NHL teams used to send their "prospects" and other players to (you can change the year in the address link to another year to view that years listing). I also have a Sporting News Hockey Guide from 1976 and at that time there were 6 franchises in both the CHL and AHL, so the farm teams for the NHL/WHA franchises were in both leagues. Regardless, as Resolute states, we aren't trying to figure out which league was the farm league for the NHL/WHA in this period. We need to figure out if the players who never advanced past the CHL are notable and are covered in sources. It seems the CHL clubs were generally in larger cities, but they were also non-traditional cities to host hockey, particularly in this time period. Patken4 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah -- the working premise isn't whether some players of the 60s-70s CHL are notable; obviously many are. It's whether we can declare every regular player in the league presumptively notable. In the IHL of the 90s or the WHL of the 60s, with a caliber of play high enough that people were seriously asking whether those leagues could challenge the NHL, that's not unreasonable. In the AHL of the last few decades, in which almost every player was under contract to a NHL team, that's not unreasonable. In the CHL of the 60s and 70s, where -- using Patken's link for a guide -- even teams that had CHL teams as sole affiliates didn't keep more than 8-10 players under contract, and the AHL clubs used CHL teams as farm teams of their own -- it would be. Ravenswing 20:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Maritime Professional Hockey League qualify as one of the historical top professional leagues? Some teams from that league played for the Stanley Cup (Halifax, New Glasgow, Moncton, Sydney) Connormah (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't place particular stress on having challenged for the Cup in the challenge era; heck, if the trustees accepted challenges from the likes of Dawson City and Queens University, they'd accept one from damn near anyone. Given that each and every time that Maritime league champions challenged for the Cup, the teams were summarily crushed, that the league just didn't measure up is apparent. Ravenswing 05:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would tend to agree. There is also the obvious challenge in assembling sources from that time period. SNGs are intended to reflect the point at which we can safely assume a player would have the RS coverage. Resolute 17:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do professional women's hockey leagues such as the Canadian Women's Hockey League and Western Women's Hockey League fit in here? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They don't really, they would be lower than the lowest leagues already listed on here. Women's professional hockey leagues would be more accurately called semi-pro leagues. For players in those leagues they would mostly have to fall under NHOCKEY #4. And I don't say that as a judgement on the quality of the game, but on the amount of media coverage, the most minor minor men's hockey league generates more coverage than the women's leagues did. For some of those teams you might have a hard time finding people in those cities that knew they had a team. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that the level of coverage accorded to women's leagues would even be enough for criterion #4. Even in hockey-mad Boston, with strong women's collegiate programs going back decades, the only time there's any media coverage at all (beyond a cursory paragraph or two of WP:ROUTINE coverage of the occasional game) is for two or three home-grown stars during the Winter Olympics or, occasionally, the Worlds. I'd say that individual women players stand or fall on the GNG. Ravenswing 20:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But women's collegiate leagues (some of them) are included here. Why are ECAC Hockey and Hockey East considered worthy of note but not the CHA, or a women's pro league? Powers ^T 15:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because ECAC and Hockey East are also men's leagues. I suggest clarifying that actually now that you mention it as it was almost certainly intended to only mean the men's leagues. And remember this list isn't about being worthy of note, its just to help decide likely levels of coverage for people in WP:NHOCKEY. Women's leagues just plain don't generate the same level of coverage as men's leagues do. So in general their players don't meet most of the exceptions on NHOCKEY with enough certainty to include them. So they fall to GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CHA was a men's league, too, just like the CCHA which is mentioned. Shouldn't it be added in italics, at least? Powers ^T 19:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And not even the pro league generates coverage. The Boston team just won the women's pro league championship, and the only way I knew about it was that one of the Hockey News writers did a blog post on it; it received no coverage in the Boston media. Ravenswing 21:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It is a bit of a shame, but even in Calgary, the Inferno usually only generate the odd special interest story in the papers. I've been to their games, and the attendance is similar to the local AJHL teams on the best days. Though some of the relevant SBN blogs (representing Calgary, Montreal and Boston at least) have been going out of their way to add coverage, but those are only blogs at this time. Resolute 22:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion regarding women's hockey dismissed the CWHL due to lack of coverage, but the NWHL is generating much more coverage through its first couple weeks of existence. I'm not sure where it should go, but I think its worth revisiting women's hockey leagues.Joeykai (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A league generating coverage does not pass notability to its players/employees. However, if the early coverage of the league translates into long term coverage, with significant discussion of the players, then yes, the topic is worth revisiting in time. Resolute 03:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's suggesting that the NWHL has failed to generate enough coverage so that the league's own notability is in question. (I do question that the NWHL has generated much more coverage through its first weeks than the CWHL did in its early days. What's your evidence for that assertion?) But that's not what the league assessment is about.

I've an exercise for you. Compare and contrast the NWHL with the Ontario Hockey League, the ECHL, Hockey East, or the GET-ligaen. Those are four leagues that have been around decades, and in the cases of the OHL and the GET-ligaen, nearly a century. Those leagues generate tremendous press coverage, and some of their teams have average attendance greater than the capacity of all four NWHL venues combined. Is it safe to say that the NWHL has a way to go to reach that level, especially since it's played all of two games to date? If so, consider: those leagues are at Criterion #4, the level where we accord presumptive notability to those who've "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American)." Ravenswing 08:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone clarify how WP:NHOCKEY #1 and #2 don't apply to women's leagues? Hmlarson (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simple; that they don't, for reasons amply given on this talk page, both in this and the previous section. No need to rehash it all. Ravenswing 21:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To cut and paste from current discussions about the notability of the various British leagues vis-a-vis (for example) Norway and Italy:

Ice hockey receives little to almost no media coverage in the UK, and its leagues tend to be ephemeral. By contrast, the Norwegian and Italian top leagues are 80 and 90 years old respectively. Ice hockey is Norway's second most popular team sport, and the Norwegian team consistently plays at the Championship tier of the Worlds, while Italy plays in the second rung.

It's not, and they don't; this is one of those leagues where third- and fourth-liners from the NA mid-minors and bottom-rung college hockey programs turn into stars. We don't accord presumptive notability to the various British leagues, and those players have to explicitly meet the GNG. (Some I checked in that flurry do, and I didn't prod those.) WP:NHOCKEY/LA is where you want to review to see the take of the WikiProject on various leagues.

Beyond that, ice hockey is an obscure and little noted sport in Britain. For instance, I follow the BBC sports site for soccer coverage. It has top level sections on soccer, Formula 1, rugby union, cricket, tennis, golf, track & field and even cycling. It has smaller sections on American football, boxing, paralympics, equestrian sports, horse racing, Gaelic football, snooker, swimming, rugby league, and "winter sports" (skiing, curling, and the like). They don't cover the Elite League at all, and simply have a block referring you to the league's webpage for scores and news.

Ravenswing 17:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And we don't give presumptive notability to all their players. Just their stars. Large numbers of NHL players have played in these leagues, granted those players would get in through their NHL time. Perhaps I am skewed on the league since XM radio covers their games and their teams and players whereas there is no coverage for Italy for example. Criteria #4 was intended to grab those star players from the low level leagues that would otherwise be dismissed just because of the league they were in. Ages of the leagues are irrelevant really. Oh and the BBC does cover ice hockey BBC Sports Ice Hockey -DJSasso (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And in searching for references for that one particular Afd, I found the league covered quite a bit in all the papers from the areas with teams. It seems to be covered just as much as the lower-level leagues like the CHL in North America. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ephemeral nature of the British leagues is irrelevant in determining the notability of the players who have competed in them. I have studied British hockey extensively and the sport has gone through many "boom and bust" periods as interest has waxed and waned. The Norwegian and Italian leagues, while ostensibly longer-running, have gone through numerous changes in format and composition over the years, and bear little resemblance to the competitions contested many, many years ago. That said, the British leagues seem to fit well in the "Lower-level minor leagues" section. I would neither bump them up nor remove them from it. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 00:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion of the Poland league at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Roberts (ice hockey) Joeykai (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is a team and/or player that is in the International Ice Hockey Federation worthy of notability? It is not listed on the project page? I ask because of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanbek_Esen_Uulu. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• To quote myself from that AfD: "[S]imply having played for a national team does not meet NHOCKEY and never has; even for teams from highly notable hockey nations such as Canada, such teams often play long exhibition schedules with greatly varying rosters. The applicable criterion of NHOCKEY only applies, and only ever has applied, to players for national teams competing at the Olympics, in the top pool of the World Championships, or in highly notable tournaments such as the Canada Cup. (We've never defined the language of the latter because the IIHF itself has frequently changed it, whether "top pool" or "First Division" or "Division A" or "Division A, A Group" or the like.)"

  The IIHF, being one of those organizations that love to claim to speak for all of their sport (and which in the IIHF's case, historically, has had it really pissed off by the NHL's insouciant independence), signs up damn near any country that has so much as a skating rink, a dozen players, and the willingness to stump up the membership dues. Obviously this makes for the admission of teams from many countries where hockey is an afterthought at best behind far more popular sports, where hockey exists at all beyond the fancy of a handful of enthusiasts.

  Something people often miss with the NSPORTS criteria is that NSPORTS is explicitly subordinate to the GNG. Each and every NSPORTS criterion should reflect that a player/team meeting it should reliably be able to meet the GNG. It's rather unlikely that each and every Kirghiz hockey player (or, indeed, just about any) could meet the GNG. Ravenswing 00:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objection to removing Note 4 from Atlantic Hockey, seeing as it doesn't sponsor women's play and never has? It's unnecessarily confusing to have it there. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No objections here. Ravenswing 16:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Ten, CCHA, and NCHC have also never sponsored women's ice hockey, so note 4 should also be removed from those conferences. Joeykai (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be simpler if we restated the NCAA criteria to just say "men's NCAA Division I" rather than listing all the conferences? The other problem is that a player who played at an independent Division I school but was a first or second team All-American or Top 10 career goal scorer would presumably be notable, at least based on the intent of the criteria. I'm not aware of any actual players who would meet the criteria if it included Division I independents but currently don't, but it's certainly possible an Arizona State player will be an All-American this year, in which case I'd presume the intent is for them to be notable. but the way it's written, they're not. We should either rewrite the rule to simply say NCAA Division I, or, at the very least, add NCAA Division I independents to the list. Smartyllama (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The rationale behind shifting to explicitly naming leagues was this: simplicity and trusting to the common sense of editors served us poorly. We went through all too many revisions to demonstrate that there wasn't any general guideline impervious to being twisted, distorted or flouted to suit various hobby horses. Honestly, rather than opening that bag of worms back up, I'd just as soon suggest that should an All-American from an independent school crop up, an editor creating an article for that player should plan on meeting the GNG. Ravenswing 14:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Why should WP:NHOCKEY apply to a Division I All-American from any Division I school in the entire country except Arizona State, which is currently the only independent? That doesn't make sense. Just add "or a Division I Independent" to the end of the list if you insist on explicitly naming leagues. Ignoring the obvious solution for what appears to be an inadvertent oversight seems rather lazy. And in any case, college conferences are like the Eastern Conference and Western Conference in the NHL - the league is NCAA Division I. No other league criteria refers to conferences within the league. Smartyllama (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given this is no longer hypothetical and we now have an NCAA All-American who is from a D1-Independent, perhaps it's time to revisit this discussion. Pinging @Ravenswing: as he's the only one who bothered to respond earlier. Smartyllama (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't tell: are teams that won the Allan Cup considered to meet notability criteria? The leagues were all changing their names and were too similar to each other. DS (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally yes, most teams that won the Allan Cup are likely notable. But like anything else they need to meet the GNG. But this page is about players, not teams. -DJSasso (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it's likely a continuum there, as to that. The Allan Cup was a lot bigger of a deal fifty or sixty years ago than it is now, I'd warrant. Ravenswing 18:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, my question was about a player who was on a team that won the Allan Cup- if he meets GNG based on that. DS (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not based on that little obituary from a website of unknown provenance as a reliable source. But if you're asking whether having played for an Allen Cup-winning team qualifies under NHOCKEY, no. Playing for a Memorial Cup or Frozen Four winner, something that generates a great deal more press, doesn't. Ravenswing 09:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based solely on that "website of unknown provenance as an RS", no; I'm fairly sure I know the original source for the obit. My question was more about whether being on an Allen Cup-winning team, both years that they won the cup -- or, indeed, all the information on that page, assuming it could be reliably sourced -- qualifies under NHOCKEY. If not, then there's not much point in digging around in the newspaper archives. DS (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: If I understand your question, you are asking "Does being on an Allan Cup-winning team give that player automatically presumed notability?" The answer is no, not all players are likely to meet GNG based solely on that qualification. It does not, however, mean that a player on an Allan Cup-winning team will definitely fail to meet GNG on their own RS coverage, especially when the trophy generated more coverage in the past than it does now. In that case, digging into the archives would probably be the only sources for those players. Yosemiter (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]