Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaimie Leonoff

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimie Leonoff

[edit]
Jaimie Leonoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG. Also fails to meet WP:NSPORTS. DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SPORTSPERSON is just the generic description of NSPORTS which is why it links to that page with more detail, as the players claim on notability hails from hockey they fall under the hockey section. So no they don't pass sportsperson. And that league isn't the first, its just the first in the US. There have been a number before it. -DJSasso (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said first in North America....there have been two in Canada over the years. Unfortunately American media often ignores what goes on outside their own country. (and that article even mentions that it is not the only pro league pointing to the current one in Canada) -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... quite aside from that it's irrelevant all the same, because there is nothing in NHOCKEY (or indeed in notability criteria generally) that accords presumptive notability to anyone participating in the "first" of something. We don't accord presumptive notability to each and every player in the first collegiate league, and we don't accord presumptive notability to each and every player in the first organized pee wee league, and we don't accord presumptive notability to each and every player in the first pro league in California, either, and I'm at a bit of a loss as to why we keep hearing this discredited argument from you. Ravenswing 19:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this a very simple case of someone clearly failing WP:GNG. The argument that this person should be considered directly as a sports person is just a poor attempt to save this article as the relevant criteria for inclusion for this athlete is WP:NHOCKEY, which she also fails. Deadman137 (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hmlarson, we have been over this with you so very many times, and your willful flouting of notability criteria in deletion discussions is just plain bad faith. No pertinent ice hockey guideline accords presumptive notability to any level of women's hockey (with the exception of play in the Olympics, which as we all know falls under a different guideline), including the NWHL, and such players must stand or fall on the GNG. This subject fails it. Yes, it is a crying shame that society pays little attention to women's hockey, but Wikipedia is still not a soapbox or a place to right great wrongs. Ravenswing 14:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite comfortable with the look in the mirror, thanks; I don't myself ignore the provisions of notability criteria even if I have a hobby horse in play. As far as "blocking notifications" go, that's cute, and I'd ask what exactly you believe you've enjoined me from doing if it were all pertinent to the AfD or I was that curious. Ravenswing 19:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We've had the conversations about this and most of us wish that the outcome was different, however every time we analyze female players that have not played for a senior national team or at the Olympics. They cannot pass the standard required for the WP:GNG, that is why we don't presume notability for any women's hockey league players. Until the level of coverage and interest in the women's game increases there really isn't much that we can do. Deadman137 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Emass100: for reference, the most recent discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69#Women's hockey. It was based on the accusations that the "notability guidelines have completely disregarded Women's Ice Hockey". NHOCKEY was developed and refined for over a decade for the men's leagues, however, the women's leagues were sparsely covered in media. I made a suggestion that the ice hockey project look into seeing if the only paid women's league (at the time) could meet any minimum requirement for inclusion to become a hard-set guideline in NHOCKEY that meets GNG (at least 95–99% of the time, we cannot make an inclusion in NSPORTS that would violate not meeting GNG), thereby fast-tracking the arduous discussions from refining NHOCKEY previously though 1000s of AfDs. In the discussion of actual sources (not just votes with WP:ILIKEIT reasons), the NWHL was found slightly lacking and slightly under the ECHL in coverage (currently listed in NHOCKEY #3 as the lowest level of presumed notability). However, many women hockey players do meet GNG. The same women also typically meet NSPORTS as an Olympian or NHOCKEY in the top-level of the IIHF World Championships. Yosemiter (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Emass100:, as with every other notability guideline on Wikipedia, we just don't use WP:ITSIMPORTANT arguments. I don't believe I'm a cementhead here (for one thing, I bet I'm one of the only hockey contributors on Wikipedia who regularly attends collegiate women's matches), but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that the world just doesn't care about women's hockey. The example I've used about the lack of coverage the sport receives is that when the Boston team won the CWHL championship, the Boston Globe -- a paper with multiple Pulitzers for its nationally renowned sports coverage -- didn't mention it at all. I only learned of the win from a blogpost on the Hockey News site. As Yosemiter states, for one of these discussions I examined ten prominent NWHL players, all of them national team members, some of them Olympians, and found that none could meet the GNG. (And that being said, surely you're aware that policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are set by community consensus, not by admins.) Ravenswing 06:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the most recent discussion was here: Bray Ketchum. If you'd like an example of how to start and derail a "consensus" discussion and make up standards that are conveniently only applied to women to make sure they are excluded from a sports notability guideline, see the example provided above Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69#Women's hockey. If my assessment is not true, some succinct links would be provided, not vague bs. The same standard does not exist for men. Hmlarson (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Given your near-complete refusal in many such AfDs to back up your assertions that the subjects meet the GNG with any links (let alone to actual qualifying sources), your challenge is scarcely in good faith. But if you would care to analyze any criterion on NHOCKEY, determine that too few players who meet that standard can meet the GNG, and present that evidence, go for it; unlike yourself, I'm quite willing to let the facts be shaped by the evidence as opposed to the other way around. As Djsasso and Yosemiter accurately state in the Ketchum AfD, the NHOCKEY criteria have been tested, and refined, and tested again, and refined again, over the course of many years and many archives. That this hasn't produced the result you want is obvious, but NHOCKEY was established many years before you became active on Wikipedia, and we are not required to secure your personal approval to maintain the standard. Ravenswing 10:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could include women in NHOCKEY, but it would be some form in the last section that could consist of:

    For coaches or managers of ice hockey teams, substitute "coached" or "managed" for "played" in the player guidelines.

    For women hockey players and personnel that do not meet the above criteria, coverage in women's college and professional teams of individuals has been found to be inconsistent and therefore the player must meet GNG independently.

    For participants in defunct leagues who satisfy any of these achievement standards, please see the ice hockey league assessment maintained by the Ice Hockey WikiProject. For leagues still in existence, only those listed above satisfy the specified criteria.

    But something tells me you would still not be happy about. Not to mention if I brought that proposal up at WT:NSPORTS, I would get shot down as it is unusual to have an anti-criterion and, as Ravenswing correctly points out in this AfD, is not used for all the other NSPORTS guidelines that have no mention of women's leagues.

    (As for "derail a "consensus" discussion", YOU asked for the links and hence pushed the discussion away from the AfD at hand with unfounded accusations, exactly as you are doing here.) Yosemiter (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was actually thinking about making that proposal soon because I am tired of having to explain that women weren't forgotten in the SNG but that they were purposefully left off except for the World Championships. To avoid the anti-criteria would just have to state it as women's players must have played in the world championships. Some other sports do it that way. Just make it clear that there is one of the criteria that they can meet. -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support #6 being changed to Played on a senior national team for the men's or women's World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year if proposed (and it sounds less condescending than my phrasing). I highly doubt that would alleviate Hmlarson's objectives though, hence my mention that each subject must meet GNG independently (which editors commonly seem to forget that NPSPORTS is subject to). Yosemiter (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really think anything would alleviate Hmlarson's concerns short of stating all professional players met it. My intention was more to stop the argument that we don't even mention them from others when we technically do in #6. -DJSasso (talk) 15:14, 25 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaimie_Leonoff&oldid=1110103886"