Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Laden


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Chelsea Laden

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable ice hockey player. Was a removed prod with the mistaken idea that playing in a national league in itself was notable. Subject fails to meet WP:GNG. And they also fail to meet WP:NHOCKEY which requires women's players to play in the World Championships/Olympics. DJSasso (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: Breathtaking failure of NHOCKEY, and no evidence the subject meets the GNG. I'd be very interested in what notability criterion the deprodder thinks "playing in a national league" satisfies.   Ravenswing    17:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Playing in a grand total of 3 games in the NWHL is not close to showing notability. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject fails WP:BASIC. Does not meet notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Fails NHOCKEY and not finding significant independent coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:GNG. Covered in Sports Illustrated and the Hockey News (in the article) and other sources as well here . We should be careful relying on WP:NHOCKEY for women's hockey as the NWHL, while new and possibly (hopefully not) transient, is a top-tier professional league. SportingFlyer  talk  03:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The second source just mentions the subject by way of a quote from her, which as we all know cannot support the notability of the quoter. The first is a very weak cite (the article isn't about the subject at all), which just mentions the subject by way of "Hey, here's someone interested in this new league!" ... in which she barely took the ice, as it happens.  As far as relying on NHOCKEY goes, the NWHL is not remotely a "top-tier professional league" by any standard whatsoever; there are mid-tier minor leagues with vastly more attendance and payroll.  What makes you claim that it is?   Ravenswing    04:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The professionals on the gold medal winning Olympic team all play in the league, with one exception (Sweden). It's the top level of professional women's hockey - if you're one of the best female hockey players in the United States, you'll likely be playing in the league. It's why a five-team league receives the level of coverage it does in national publications. SportingFlyer  talk  04:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not here to comment on GNG merits yet, I like to actually dig into the sources, but the comment that it is THE top level is not entirely accurate and that ALL the 2018 US Olympic players are in the NWHL is just false. Since the paycuts, some of the Olympic players have gone back to the CWHL, especially now that that league is now paying a salary as well. (see Hilary Knight (ice hockey), Kacey Bellamy and Brianna Decker.) Less than half the 2018 US Olympic team has played for the NWHL, several are still in college, a few more Minnesotans are joining the local Whitecaps team but had not played in the NWHL previously, and four are now in the CWHL (arguably two of the star players from that 2018 team). In total, 9 of the 23 2018 US Olympic team are signed to the 2018–19 NWHL season. As opposed to the Canadian Olympic team, where most off its players have gone on to the CWHL (I think all but Shannon Szabados, who was actually playing in men's pro leagues before joining the NWHL Beauts this year, and a few college players). The CWHL, and a couple of European teams, are easily on par with this league in terms of overall skill, even if they are possibly less covered in independent media. It should also be pointed out, that while the league is "professional" that it could be argued that it is not "fully professional" since almost all players have jobs outside of playing for their teams in order to live. So while the league is ONE of the top-tier women's leagues, in terms of inconsistent media coverage, lower pay, and marginal attendance, it falls somewhere in between the ECHL and the Southern Professional Hockey League, neither of which have automatic presumed notability for simply having a contract and stepping on the ice once. Yosemiter (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I used the 2018 Olympic rosters as a reference. I also used the term "professionals" as a qualifier, and comparing this to the ECHL is ridiculous - the NWHL and CWHL contain some of the best women's hockey players in the world and we're excluding the routine coverage of the league for reasons I don't completely understand or agree with. These leagues don't have any presumed notability guidelines, not even a "preeminent honors" guideline, but the ECHL isn't getting coverage on say ESPN (unless there's a fight). SportingFlyer  talk  16:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was merely addressing your misleading statement of ALL the 2018 US Olympic team plays in the NWHL, when in actuality 9 of the 23 women on that team are signed to play in the NWHL. The ice hockey project did look into the "preeminent honors" of the league last year, but the independent media coverage of the players was too inconsistent to write a guideline for at that time. The CWHL, an older league, had even less consistency. Yosemiter (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That is because, having an article isn't based on talent. It is based on coverage in sources, the NWHL and CWHL are so rarely covered in the media, there was a recent debate on what exactly a couple of the teams called themselves a few years back because there was no sources at all from which to find the information. If the media isn't even covering the teams to the point where the names of the teams were in question, there is no way they are covering every single player that steps onto the ice for a single game. And as for the preeminent honors, we recently went through a list of the recent award winners in the leagues and not even all of them could meet the GNG which is why the leagues also don't fall under that one. I would love women's hockey to grow to the point where we can add more them to the wiki. I am a hockey fan first and foremost, but unfortunately we just are not there yet. The Boston team won the championship the other year and the locals papers didn't even mention it for example let alone talk about any players. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am surprised with the amount of coverage it receives, to be honest, and stand by my vote and my previous statement. SportingFlyer  talk  17:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the sports illustrated ref alone is enough for her to pass gng. The closer should note the ref and discussion from sporting flyer came after those delete votes. Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The sports illustrated ref isn't really about her, its a passing mention. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph starts with "Chelsea Laden thought", the second paragraph starts with "Laden, who plans to", the third paragraph starts "But toward the end of her time at Quinnipiac, Laden heard" the fourth starts "Laden’s salary" - that's one gigantic passing mention. Szzuk (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if the SI article is considered to provide significant coverage, that is still only one source. GNG requires "multiple" independent sources.  From my own standpoint I regard this article as being more than passing mention but less than significant coverage on its own, since it doesn't say much about her.  So I don't disregard it from a GNG standpoint but I can't give it full credit towards significant coverage.  Basically, by my accounting if there is another independent source of this quality I would count the combination as 1 independent source providing significant coverage, which would still not be enough for GNG.  But again, even if one counts this as providing significant coverage in its own right, it is still just one source, not multiple sources.Rlendog (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. The articles that mention her use her as an example, but they're focused on the NWHL not her. Being first NWHL trade is not notable nor is playing 3 games.Sandals1 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: per Rlendog. Women's hockey doesn't get media coverage, and that's just why SNG's don't favor it. Also maybe some people here need a reminder on the GNG. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the language. Doesn't matter if a person got fleeting coverage on the tablets from Mt. Sinai, that doesn't meet the GNG.  Nha Trang  Allons! 19:27, 5 October 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.