Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Smith (ice hockey)

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 that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Smith (ice hockey)

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

Disputed prod on the basis of meeting WP:NHOCKEY #4. The USHL is not a major junior league in comparison to those in Canada. Consensus in the past indicates the NCAA is the highest amateur competition in the United States, and therefore, NHOCKEY refers to the CHL in Canada, NCAA in the US. Grsz 11 04:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: This player was a USHL First Team All-Star. As such, this article explicitly meets criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY which states that a "first team all-star ... in a major junior league" is presumed to be notable. In North America the major junior leagues include the WHL, OHL, QMJHL, and the USHL. Case closed. Dolovis (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most would disagree in labeling the USHL as major junior, and that's the issue here. Simply, it's not. NCAA first team all-stars would fall under this. Here is a recent discussion of the issue. Grsz 11 04:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to point out that your so-called recent discussion of the issue failed to reach a consensus. I suggest that you wait to see what "most" others might, or might not, agree with. Dolovis (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal was to include the USHL. That's what wasn't accepted. Therefore, USHL is not included under #4. No reason to act that way, as I was for including USHL in the first place, others were not, and now this AfD is based on that consensus. Grsz 11 05:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he was proposing to add it and did not have consensus, which would mean there was consensus that it did not count. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the consensus that USHL first all star team members do not meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd suggest, for instance, that the popular perception of the USHL's skill level is fueled by the fact that many USHL players go on to play NCAA hockey. Ravenswing 15:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest that the above comments on skill level demonstrate an anti-American bias. If notability were based on skill level then we should not have articles about all those minor league European players (DEL, ect.). The Fact is that the USHL is the highest level of Major Junior hockey in the United States, and only the very best player at his position is named to the 6 man all-star team each year. If USHL is excluded from the ranks of WP:NHOCKEY, then it would have been explicitly deleted, but it wasn't because their was no consensus reached to do so. Dolovis (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my comment has nothing to do with skill, but is about press coverage. In terms of press coverage, the USHL winners receive little to no coverage. Big press coverage for amateur hockey in the united states goes to NCAA hockey. As such its the NCAA that is the equivalent to major-junior hockey, not the USHL. As for you labelling it a fact that the USHL is major-junior hockey, that is your opinion and you are welcome to have it. But as you saw in previous discussions, that isn't even remotely universally accepted. It didn't have to have consensus to be deleted because it was never added, because there was no consensus that it was major-junior. -DJSasso (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Perhaps you should drop in on my user page, which would tell you in what part of the world I live. That being said, however difficult the concept is to grasp, there are indeed many Wikipedians who base their stances on Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and who come to those conclusions without reference to biases or malice. Ravenswing 18:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have never understood the reasoning why some refer to the USHL as the top level of amateur hockey in the United States. The USHL is quite literally on par with the Canadian Junior Hockey League and its 10 associated leagues, both in terms of skill and development path. The purpose of the USHL is to serve as a feeder league to the NCAA, much like how players in Canada play junior "A" hockey as opposed to major junior to keep their NCAA eligibility. Don't forget that nine of the sixty teams in the Canadian Hockey League are American, and it is well established that the CHL is meant to serve both Canadian and American players, although more often than not, American players tend to lean towards the NCAA route. So, two points. 1) The assertion above that the USHL is the top level of major junior hockey in the United States is incorrect. In reality the CHL is the highest level of major junior hockey in the United States, and this is doubly demonstrated by the CHL's inclusion of American teams, and the fact that each state's players—like each province's players—are restricted to one of the three leagues for their respective drafts. 2) The highest level of fully amateur hockey in the United States (as the CHL is not technically "amateur") is indeed the NCAA, quite literally the American equivalent of the CHL in terms of skill and development. Think of it this way: most NCAA rosters consist mainly of Americans with a few Canadian players while most CHL rosters consist mainly of Canadians with a few American players. So to answer the question this AfD poses, no the subject is not notable because his league is not included in WP:NHOCKEY and he has not otherwise achieved WP:GNG. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he was a first-rounder, that would be enough for a keep. But a fourth-rounder? Not so much. Nothing in his college career as of yet indicates enough for an article. Blueboy 96 21:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to pass WP:NHOCKEY as this reference supports that the USHL is a “major” junior league comparable to those of the Canadian Hockey League. That he passes WP:GNG is supported by [1], [2], and [3]. Kugao (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "source" that you say shows that the USHL is a 'major' junior league is simply a listing of rated prospects, and is published by the USHL. It is hardly independent or convincing. Secondly, of the other three sources, the first two are trivial routine coverage, and the third is borderline. I don't see enough to pass WP:GNG. Ravendrop (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The USHL's own website, the local county weekly and Some Website count as "reliable, independent sources?" Ravenswing 23:01, 15 January 2011 (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.