Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elena Orlando


 * 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 appears to be that a) the references in the article aren't enough to meet GNG and b) NHOCKEY apparently isn't met either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Elena Orlando

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to mee WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. What sources can be found are routine coverage or passing mentions. Nothing in depth as is required by GNG. DJSasso (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the sources in the article are enough for substantial coverage meeting WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Indeed, the article creator splashed a bunch of references across the page (hoping, perhaps, that people might say "Ooh, there are several sources!" and not go from there to examining them). What he failed to do, unfortunately, was find reliable, independent, third-party sources.  When one gets past the blogsites and the league's own site, there are only two reliable sources cited: Yahoo Sports and the National Post. Neither of those sources (or indeed any other) provide the subject with more than incidental, routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from supporting notability by WP:ROUTINE.  Since the subject likewise does not meet WP:NHOCKEY, notability cannot be sustained.   Ravenswing   16:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - My analysis is consistent with Ravenswing's. The coverage in independent reliable sources is not nearly significant enough to sustain notability - mostly coverage of a single incident in which the subject was suspended, generating a few mentions of the subject's name. Rlendog (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. WP:NHOCKEY does not include any women's leagues, so is irrelevant here. Hmlarson (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Number 6 of NHOCKEY apply to women's players. (Not to mention any of the others can if a women plays in any of the league mentioned) And I assume you have some sources that go in depth on the player to claim they meet GNG? -DJSasso (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Eeesh. We've gone down this riff before; since this person's notability solely hinges on her being a hockey player, NHOCKEY is the pertinent notability guideline, and you can with quite as much justification claim that since NHOCKEY accords no presumptive notability to Paraguayan leagues, it does not govern Paraguyan players.  Beyond that, I'm with Djsasso; which sources, precisely, do you claim satisfy the GNG?   Ravenswing   05:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I went through all 6 pages of hits for "Elena Orlando" on G-News. She gets mentioned quite a bit (including one sentence about being a nurse in The New York Times and Sports Illustrated), but nothing that I would consider significant coverage as described in GNG. The majority of anything close to in-depth about her is the one event about her getting suspended. Yosemiter (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Yosemiter, whether or not NHOCKEY applies (it should) there has been no effort to prove a GNG pass.  you stated  here that NHOCKEY, "looks like it needs to be updated with women's leagues."  Well this is an apparent rank and file player from two different top level women's leagues, so it is a golden opportunity to make a case for the NWHL and the SDHL.18abruce (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For a league that is not deemed "notable", the league, team, and player articles sure have a lot of blue links. I wasn't familiar with SDHL, but I will take a look and start working on those that WP:GNG is applicable. Any other top leagues I should take a look at? Hmlarson (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Why do you think these deletions are happening? Because we are cleaning up those blue links that shouldn't be blue. And I would point out, its not the league that isn't notable. It is that not every single player that plays in the league is notable. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not think that we would have to educate a veteran editor who's worked on many sports articles on some basic facts. But sure, if you insist.  If you're genuinely asking why there are so many blue links for NWHL players (as opposed to just another snide crack), the explanation is simple.  As per WP:NOLYMPICS, all women hockey players competing at the Olympics are presumptively notable.  Twice as many teams compete in the women's pool at the Winter Olympics as compete in the NWHL, with larger rosters, and it should come as a surprise to no one with any familiarity with sports that the sixty-someodd women on NWHL rosters at any given time are predominantly Olympians.   Ravenswing   22:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Remarkable that that is a priority for you in this case - but to each her own. Hmlarson (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing articles on non-notable topics should be a priority for everyone in every subject. I just happen to edit ice hockey articles so I often nominate ice hockey players. In this case a new league being started caused a spat of articles to be created because people assumed all professional players are notable, and that isn't the case. This article isn't special we literally have around 10 ice hockey players up for deletion every week. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The NWHL started in 2015. This article was created in June 2017. For a league that is not deemed "notable", the league, team, and player articles sure have a lot of blue links. Hmlarson (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Was the creator of the article notified of the proposed deletion per WP:PRODNOM? Does that editor know they can comment here? Hmlarson (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly. New league, only two years old. Again the league is deemed notable. You seem to keep missing that fact. Just because a league is notable doesn't mean all the players in it are, notability is not inherited. Notability comes through coverage by sources. Not every player in the NWHL was the subject of multiple in depth articles. If you think they were then proove it. Find a couple players who played a single game in the league and go find multiple in depth articles on them. If you can do that then likely the NWHL would end up on NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And still no discussion on how she meets GNG, I give up.18abruce (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that the really the criteria for the men's leagues? "Find a couple players who played a single game in the league and go find multiple in depth articles on them." That's it for inclusion on WP:NHOCKEY? Everyone else here agree? Just want to confirm for future reference. Hmlarson (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The criteria is GNG. NHOCKEY was created (and has become more stringent) based on players that have passed GNG. I think DJSasso was merely pointing out that players who fit into NHOCKEY #1 (one game in the NHL, etc.) pass GNG 99% of the time. The same cannot be said for most hockey leagues unfortunately, men or women. The "couple players who played a single game in the league" is that if their only claim to notability is the NWHL, then finding at least a couple players that fit that description and pass GNG would be the basis to start a discussion on the league's players inclusion to NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't understand the need for WP:NHOCKEY or other sport-specific notability guidelines when WP:GNG supercedes them anyhow. Hmlarson (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That isn't what I meant. I meant NHOCKEY criteria does meet GNG and that is why it is so strict. Any league not on there means there is no presumed notability (and the NWHL is a hockey league so therefore it can be used). NHOCKEY (and all NSPORTS) is meant a quick reference for what would likely pass or fail based on the subject's participation in said sport (and that is the only assumption of notability for this subject). So based on failing NHOCKEY, this subject must pass GNG on its own coverage. Do you have any other reliable and significant depth sources about the subject to contribute? Yosemiter (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 18abruce has a definite point here. For a month now, you've been complaining just about every time an AfD on a female hockey player comes up, and now you're descending into sneering.  A SPA hotly defending his or her pet creation can be excused for not understanding how notability guidelines or a consensus-based encyclopedia work, and that the way to defend an article at AfD is to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the other editors that the subject meets the GNG and/or pertinent notability guidelines. An editor of your experience, with many edits at AfD, over a decade on Wikipedia, and who's been involved in sports notability standards, by contrast, has no excuse.  If your real agenda here is to argue against sports notability guidelines, I recommend NSPORTS' talk page. In the meantime, I posed a question above that you've ignored, and have indeed ignored every time I've posed it to you on some of these AfDs: what specific cites in this article do you claim meet the GNG's requirements?   Ravenswing   19:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] WP:GNG must apply to all articles no matter the sports guideline/essay per the "Applicable policies and guidelines" section of WP:NSPORTS and core Wiki notability guidelines, and thus supercedes WP:NHOCKEY. There is no way for you to guarantee that every article "given a pass" by HOCKEY meets WP:GNG, but if you'd like to claim that, it is what it is.
 * As mentioned above, the references included in the article reflect WP:GNG especially considering the context that women athletes historically receive ~2% of sports coverage. ref. "When will the news catch up?" Good thing that's changing. Hmlarson (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody is claiming NHOCKEY is over ruling GNG. Quite the opposite, when I state in my nomination that it fails both what I mean is. It fails WP:GNG and because it also fails WP:NHOCKEY it doesn't get a reprieve from deletion. NHOCKEY is used to save articles from deletion (when sources are likely to exist), not prevent them from having an article. In order to meet GNG sources have to go into significant detail and can't be WP:ROUTINE coverage. None of the sources on the page are in detail about the subject. They are all either primary sources that are passing mentions, game summaries/signings that are routine coverage or other passing mentions. She very clearly fails GNG. What we are asking you is which of these sources you think go into significant detail on the subject so as to meet the requirements of GNG. And we don't claim every article that gets a pass from NHOCKEY meets GNG. Typically we always state 99% or often 99.9999% in comments. We know some will not meet GNG still and is why NSPORTS mentions they can still be deleted even if they meet them. -DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] "They are all either primary sources that are passing mentions, game summaries/signings that are routine coverage or other passing mentions." Strange, are you looking at the same article? If so, would it be too much to ask for you to present your evidence one by one to support your claims? Hmlarson (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well since you won't say which of them goes into detail I might as well.
 * Blog
 * Not independent - School newspaper
 * Blog
 * Routine coverage of contract signing
 * Passing mention in regards to a suspension in a game
 * Passing mention in regards to a suspension in a game
 * Passing mention in regards to a suspension in a game
 * Passing mention only contains name in list
 * Routine coverage of contract signing & blog
 * Passing mention/Routine coverage of award winners
 * Routine coverage of contract signing & primary source league site
 * So which of them do you think is meets the requirement of significant coverage, and remember even if there was one which there isn't, GNG requires multiple. -DJSasso (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

My interpretation of the sources (written at the same time as DJ), in order of usage on her page: Local blog, local routine coverage from her college team, fan blog dedicate to covering up-and-coming hockey players, routine signing article, good source on the one event but still only mentioned in one place, good source but same event and only a mentioned twice, same event, routine training camp announcement, blog and routine signing announcement, a mention that she won a community service award (one of four awarded), and primary signing announcement. All seems very run-of-the-mill and routine to me. Even the one incident articles are more about the incident and the suspension over anything about her as a person or even as a player (Yahoo!' — "Whale forward Michaela Long and Riveters defenseman Elena Orlando were each given one-game bans"; Nat. Post – "The NWHL announced on Friday that it was suspending Long and Riveters defenceman Elena Orlando for one game apiece and issuing warnings to New York’s Morgan Fritz-Ward and Bray Ketchum", "he Player Safety Committee determined that Orlando, who immediately joined the fight after a legal line change"; etc.) Yosemiter (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For sports articles in general, are SB Nation citations discredited as blogs across the board? Strange that it would have its own Wikipedia category: Category:SB Nation (though questionable if needed), be operated by Vox Media and have "content-sharing partnerships with Yahoo! Sports, CBS Sports, USA Today, Comcast and the National Hockey League (NHL)." Do you consider it like the Daily Mail? Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source Hmlarson (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Still arguing for the sake of arguing. Still avoiding doing the one thing that would save the article and shut us all up.  If you're seeking to convince us that you're promoting a personal agenda, at that much you've been quite persuasive this past month.   Ravenswing   21:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In regards to SB Nation (where the "B" at least used to stand for "Blogs"), I find it a highly useful site for routine day-to-day info on specific teams. However, as stated in the second sentence of SB Nation: "the site comprises 320 blogs covering individual professional and college sports teams". It is simply a host for highly specific content sites. Those sites generally only write articles that reference other reports or are their analysis/opinion of happenings with the team. In this case, the publisher is the NY Rangers' site Blueshirt Banter. They solely focus on the Rangers, the Rangers' affiliates and prospects, and other relevant NY hockey content that they feel their very specific readership might be interested in. Usually I would consider any SB Nation site to be too heavily biased (just like most blogs) to be considered independent from the subject matter. Possibly a reliable source for background information (although they do like to re-publish unconfirmed rumors if it might be of interest) and definitely a helpful resource on team news, but not one I consider worthy of meeting the standards of a source for GNG. Hopefully that answers the question. Yosemiter (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I frequent SB Nation sites/blogs also -- perhaps initially drawn to them by the frequency of their use as citations in other sports-related articles on Wikipedia. It's no Daily Mail - for sure: SB Nation Editorial Board and reach "Independence standards" are subjective (see also Fox News and RT as a reliable source), thanks for sharing your take. Hmlarson (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete there is a lack of the significant coverage needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2017 (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.