Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Powers


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Andy Powers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page has been created for personal vanity. The person listed in this article is not a well known hockey player or celebrity. Within the article you will see fabricated quotes, purely for humor purposes, with fake references attributed to them. References 1-7 are invalid to the content they are supplied to support. Ab4tttis (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable: person exists and the main facts of his career seem to be true, but without any coverage to meet WP:GNG and not successful enough for notability via WP:NHOCKEY. Article was created in 2009 by OReilly7, whose only other contributions are adding a reference to Powers to the page on Marty Reasoner (a more successful player who played alongside Powers for Boston College) and adding Powers as an alumnus to his high school's page. Page is an obvious example of OReilly7 writing a bio of a friend. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep – Easily passes WP:NHOCKEY with 209 games played in the ECHL and another 75 in the CHL. We don't throw out articles on notable subjects just because they are poorly written; instead this article should be cleaned up to address the editorial issues raised by the nom. Dolovis (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Dolovis, but fundamentally re-write. The article in its current form is pure nonsense. -- Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 14:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG as I am not seeing non-trivial coverage of the individual. Several routine mentions though.  Ultimately, WP:HOCKEY only presumes notability, but it does not guarantee it. Resolute 23:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not seeing any non-routine coverage of this individual to pass GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the previous comments--there appears to be no significant independent coverage of him.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment to those who want to throw away WP:NHOCKEY:
 * This article meets the standard for inclusion because is does "provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria" as required by WP:NSPORTS. Powers specifically meets criteria #3 of WP:NHOCKEY for having played 209 games in the ECHL. He also won the 2000-01 Central Hockey League award for community service, which might not be a major award, but it does demonstrates that this player attracted league wide attention, and was not just a nobody. He also received stand-out recognition during his college career as Boston College's Most Improved Player of 1997-98. The reason that we have NHOCKEY is because a consensus of editors have decided that an ice hockey player is presumed notable if he has reached certain milestones in his career. This player has reached and surpassed that established criteria. The article is now well sourced to verify this player's professional career and accomplishments. By virtue of NSPORTS, it can be presumed that additional sources exist, which would be located with a proper search of non-internet hard-copy sources. But time is in short supply for all of us editors, which is why the standards of WP:NSPORTS exist. Dolovis (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words, you are completely unable to satisfy GNG. Resolute 23:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, in other words what I am saying is that if I had a microfiche reader and access to newspapers and magazines from the period he was active, then GNG could be demonstrated. The presumption of notability has been met, and nothing you have put forth rebuts that presumption. By your argument, virtually all pre-2000 athletes (yes, including many major league, olympic, and other non-disputably notable athletes) would fail GNG. That is why NSPORTS exists. As it is, the references shown within the article are probably enough to statisify GNG, and in any event he explicitly meets the criteria of NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand why it would be necessary for this person to meet the GNG if he already meets NHOCKEY. NSPORTS states "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."  The "or" looms large here it would seem to me.  Nowhere is it stated that GNG must be met in addition to NHOCKEY.  I would bet dollars to donuts we could find NHL and/or Olympic players who meet NHOCKEY while failing GNG, probably quite a few, yet I doubt we could reach consensus to delete any of them.  I also fail to see how deleting the page would further the interest of the project as a whole.  In any case, there seems to be agreement that he does, in fact, meet the requirements of NHOCKEY.  If GNG must be met regardless of NHOCKEY then what is the purpose of NHOCKEY? Rejectwater (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * NHOCKEY/NSPORTS only presumes that a player who meets specific criteria has been the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage so as to pass WP:GNG. Since it is based on arbitrary statistics, the criteria simply cannot guarantee that such coverage exists.  Its purpose, as Dolovis alludes to, is to create that presumption on the expectation that sources will eventually be found.  It does not, however, create blanket immunity from having that presumption challenged.   And yes, someone could AFD an NHL player.  But given my extensive personal library, including a book that profiles every player in NHL history up to 2003, coupled with the abundance of online sources, newspaper archives that I know exist (as opposed to Dolovis pretending exists), I could show a GNG pass on an NHL player without breaking a sweat.   What this AFD is doing, is asking interested editors to show a GNG pass for Andy Powers.  That means demonstrating the existence of multiple  reliable sources that cover the individual in detail and are independent of the subject (and his employer bios do not count).  The truth is, we are not talking about an NHL player here, but one who played in low-level minor leagues.  The coverage of this individual - or lack thereof - reflects this. Resolute 19:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I don't think the size of your library is the issue here. However, in a separate discussion, isaacl has brought to my attention Notability (sports)/FAQ which answers the main question I had.  "[T]he subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline." What appears to be at the heart of this discussion is a misunderstanding of how to apply NHOCKEY in determining notability, which is due at least in part to a vital piece of policy being squirreled away in an FAQ. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be pointed out that Notability (sports)/FAQ goes on to state: "For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics" (i.e. the criteria of NHOCKEY which establishes the presumption of notability as decided by a consensus of editors knowledgeable on the topic). Dolovis (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have persons in mind you would like to compare him to? Rejectwater (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The other persons to compare him to would be professional ice hockey players who have played 5 years of minor professional hockey in North America. Do you require a list of names, and if so, how many names do you want? Dolovis (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * More accurately, it would be a list of players who played similar years of low minor professional hockey around the same time this player did. "Similar characteristics", after all.  And like this case, the names you would have to come up with would have to demonstrate GNG passes. I would be most interested to see if you can demonstrate that we can expect most players who appeared in say 4-6 seasons of ECHL or lower hockey, in the internet age, have sufficient RS coverage. Resolute 20:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, I would be interested to see this also. Rejectwater (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that the subject played in the 1990s for major cities, I'm certain the teams for which he played were covered by reliable sources, and so there's no need to look for indirect evidence of meeting the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note the first sentence in WP:NSPORTS is as follows: "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." The third paragraph states:
 * Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
 * The FAQ simply re-states this again, using different language. isaacl (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: There should be no reasonable doubt that a player who has played over 200 ECHL games will meet the notability criteria of GNG (he easily passes NHOCKEY), but given that he played in the pre-Internet era, sources are naturally more difficult to locate. Nonetheless, numerous, but brief, references found on-line might be enough to pass GNG: If not, then please USERFY this article in my namespace so I can continue to look for sources per GNG.  17:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolovis (talk • contribs)
 * 1 is his employer bio. 2 is a trivial mention. 3 is a trivial mention. 4 is a trivial mention. 5. a freewebs fansite? Are you kidding me? 6 is a trivial mention. 7 is a trivial mention. 8 is a trivial mention. 9 is a trivial mention.  Are you sensing the pattern here, Dolovis? This is all just routine coverage, and very brief mentions.  Also, in what universe is a pro career that spanned between 1999 and 2004 "pre-internet era"?  And finally, keep in mind that userfication is meant to be a temporary measure.  If you get it done this way and nothing happens, I will MfD the userfied version. Resolute 18:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:NHOCKEY. As pointed out, his playing days predate the world wide web of online sources.  For those with Highbeam access, there's plenty of coverage about him.  Much of it can be classified as routine sports coverage which would not go towards notability.  I did find this article in which Powers is one of a few players featured for Beanpot (ice hockey).  This covers him in the context of being on the BC top line.  This features him in the context of a playoff game.  These types of results from Highbeam lead me to conclude that many more offline sources could be found to satisfy general notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete There seems to be mentioning of sources from the "pre internet" era that would justify this article. I've searched the Factiva database, which covers newspapers and some sport literature for this period and found NO mentions of him. Secondly, his career was in the early 2000's, which is not pre web/internet in any case Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You obviously have not looked at the sources located by Whpq via Highbeam. This player meets GNG in addition to NHOCKEY with the existence of those aforementioned sources. I would hope the closing admin takes that into account for all Delete votes which claim that Powers doesn't meet GNG. -- Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 18:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:NHOCKEY #3. The state of the article at the time of nomiation may well have been deplorable, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.