Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bray Ketchum


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Bray Ketchum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG. Also fails to meet WP:NSPORTS. DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject passes the GNG. Only coverage routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE as contributing towards notability.   Ravenswing   21:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The WP:NHOCKEY guideline does not say anything about women's ice hockey players. This should be discussed at the project when a female ice hockey player is notable or not. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It does, it requires them to play at the world championships or the olympics. It has been discussed at the project and other than the world championships or the olympics they were purposefully left out NHOCKEY. Otherwise it is left up to GNG which this player also fails to meet so whether or not NHOCKEY mentions them would be moot anyway. -DJSasso (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * for reference, the most recent discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69. Yosemiter (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the discussion. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - can you provide links to similar discussions + criteria for men's leagues? Hmlarson (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The men's leagues are constantly discussed, just look through the archives of WT:HOCKEY, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment, and WT:NSPORTS. The discussions are probably well into the double digits for how many times what is or isn't on NHOCKEY has been discussed. -DJSasso (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can either of you provide an example of a men's league where the same criteria used to guide the discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69 was analyzed similarly and added to WP:NHOCKEY? Hmlarson (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest going through User Talk:Dolovis archives for all the nominations and AfDs that led to the strict version of NHOCKEY (the user literally created thousands of sub-stubs and redirects for low-level pro and high amateur hockey players). In other words, it developed over several years of AfDs and random discussion. In other discussions, which we have all the time, in reverse chronological order: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive68, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive62, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_23, Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 17, Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 16 etc. The discussion I linked first was one I started, specifically in order to hurry up the process with an in-depth study of players who would qualify for NHOCKEY by adding the only pro women's league at the time. (I am a research engineer, case studies are my bread and butter.) It should be noted, I was comparing it primarily to the ECHL, a mid-level North American pro league that we say only meets NHOCKEY#3. I found the women had far less coverage, if any in actual news sites, than the men of the same awards each season. It is unfortunate, but that does appear to be the situation right now. Until then, GNG and BLP are the standards. Yosemiter (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but none of those answer my question. Hmlarson (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your question was: "can you provide links to similar discussions + criteria for men's leagues?" My answer was: "here is some links over the several years where we discussed men's leagues and which qualify based on observations over even more years of AfDs." Yosemiter (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are wasting your time. Her typical method of operation is to ask questions and then when you answer ask another and another trying to filibuster the discussion. She has an extreme bias and would likely keep any article that featured a woman. I don't know that I have ever seen her admit there is no sourcing for an article on a woman and vote delete, even in situations where is was crazy obvious the article was delete worthy. -DJSasso (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, question was clarified, "Can either of you provide an example of a men's league where the same criteria  used to guide the discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69 was analyzed similarly and added to WP:NHOCKEY?" It doesn't exist - is that right,  + ? Hmlarson (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC
 * And as you were told there are literally hundreds of discussions on this topic. If for some reason you want one exactly like that one discussion you are going to have to go to the places we pointed out to look for them. I can't see anyone wanting to waste their time looking for it for you. Especially since it holds no relevance to the discussion at hand. -DJSasso (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I am not about to link 1000 AfDs for you (hell, more than half are probably linked on Dolovis talk page archives, so start there). I did provide you discussions that were the outcome of said AfDs though. As I said, folks have discussed NHOCKEY for men's leagues ad nauseam. If you won't WP:AGF on the decade worth of discussion, then I really can't help you. Yosemiter (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Instead of engaging in an unproductive mud-slinging match with, let's review:
 * This discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69, initiated by and cited above has a consensus of editors in support of adding to NWHL to the notability guideline, but appears to have been derailed by the same editor by creating a standard/analysis of inclusion that just doesn't exist for men's leagues. Hmlarson (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you reading the same discussion, multiple people disagreed, there was very much no consensus. Secondly, that standard of inclusion/analysis is used on all sports criteria on NSPORTS. In fact there is one on the talkpage there right now for NBOXING with the exact same standard of analysis. This isn't just some attempt to block them out like you are trying to play up. NHOCKEY is meant to show when GNG can be met. There is no evidence that even all of the top award winners in the NWHL can meet GNG let alone the players who only play a single game. The standard criteria used on the NSPORTS talk page to make a change to any of the guidlines is that 99.999% of players that would be affected by the new criteria need to be able to meet GNG. The discussion analysis Yosemiter, Ravenswing and 18abruce did showed that not even the top players in the women's league were guaranteed to make it. -DJSasso (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It was a discussion to look into a proposal, not an actual proposal. I wanted facts, not a vote. 2) There was no "consensus" (Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity; nor is it the result of a vote). There were editors who chimed in with "Support" because WP:ILIKEIT and there were editors who were actually doing what I asked about, discussing if the top NWHL players met GNG. The editors actually discussing the sources and references, and not just voting, more or less came to the conclusion that it was still premature to have a hard guideline in NHOCKEY for inclusion outside of the Worlds and Olympics. Per NSPORTS, we should never write a guideline that might make it more likely to conflict with GNG as GNG supersedes NSPORTS. (Maybe I should note, that you to never answered my critique below. Please provide evidence of GNG for the AfD at hand. We have gotten far off topic here.) Yosemiter (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SPORTSPERSON. Player plays in National Women's Hockey League (NWHL), highest league in the United States, and the first pro women's hockey league in North America. Article could use improved referencing, expansion, including more links to season articles and not deletion, per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right it could use improved referencing, which is exactly what it needs in order to meet GNG per WP:SOURCES. As GNG trumps WP:SPORTSPERSON, and GNG is nomination reason, let us keep it there. So here is a little WP:BEFORE. A simple G-News search does not kick up much outside of the New York-area specific hockey blog/news (self-described as "Blueshirt Banter is a fan driven blog" and Ice Garden is "@sbnation women's hockey blog"), a single short quote in the NY Times, and a few mentions here and there by name. Best I found of significant depth is this article about her contributions to charity, but barely talks about her as a hockey player. As for ATD, what would the alternative to deletion be? ATD mainly address content, not notability per the statement: If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD. If notability of the content is in question, the other options are tagging (the tag would be Template:Notability so it does not fix it), merging/redirect (to where?), incubate (possibly, but not likely to be any different in 6 months), or archiving. None appear to apply here. I will not vote delete/keep on this, but if you say keep because WP:ITSIMPORTANT, I would usually prefer a bit of supportive sources behind it. Yosemiter (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - the correct guideline is WP:NHOCKEY, which this person fails. More importantly, they also fail WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 19:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as she clearly fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2018 (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.