Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Semborski


 * 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. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Eric Semborski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN hockey player, overwhelmingly fails WP:NHOCKEY, the creation of an editor with numerous such articles up at AfD. The fellow's a practice rink employee (according to the ref) who sat on the bench for a game as an emergency goalie but didn't see action. No sources that don't run afoul of WP:ONEEVENT, and guys like this come a few times each season ... completely ephemerally.   Ravenswing   19:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: Fulfills WP:NHOCKEY: "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league." Hurrygane (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Which, in point, he has not. It's long been established -- both by NHL rules and by WP precedent in such cases -- that if you don't take the ice during a game, you don't play, and you're not credited with having played.   Ravenswing   00:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails for two reasons. 1) Ravenswing wrote: '"NN hockey player, overwhelmingly fails WP:NHOCKEY, the creation of an editor with numerous such articles up at AfD.  The fellow's a practice rink employee (according to the ref) who sat on the bench for a game as an emergency goalie but didn't see action.  No sources that don't run afoul of WP:ONEEVENT, and guys like this come a few times each season ... completely ephemerally." 2) Ravenswing  also pointed out:  "It's long been established -- both by NHL rules and by WP precedent in such cases -- that if you don't take the ice during a game, you don't play, and you're not credited with having played."  So there is no possible way this guy is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article at this time. Dean Esmay (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep While it is true that there are a few guys like this every year, his coverage has gone beyond the norm: here,, and you can order his jersey which has sold well. It should be noted that someone who appeared for two different teams (philadelphia as well) in one season can hardly be summed up by WP:ONEEVENT. 18abruce (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd dispute that his coverage has gone beyond the norm. How so? Zero news hits in the last fortnight.   Ravenswing   23:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, he was included in the Topps trading card set. As this article points out it is an unusual situation and amount of attention given to an emergency backup.  And again, maybe I am reading this ONEEVENT thing wrong, but does this mean that he applies to ONEEVENT twice?18abruce (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I can't really decide on this one whether ONEEVENT applies. During his call up with the Flyers as an emergency, they did try to get him on the ice at the very end of the game. However, he was called back to the bench by the refs because, officially, the emergency goalie can only play if all goaltenders are injured. So he would have had ice time had the rules not disallowed it. He did receive a fair amount of coverage for it, but they are borderline routine as "odd news". Yosemiter (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely a WP:ONEEVENT situation and since he didn't take the ice he doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - He got coverage for his day an emergency goalie for the Blackhawks, e.g., , although that would be WP:ONEEVENT.  But then he got coverage for getting an official Topps Hockey card , which puts him beyond a typical ONEEVENT hockey situation, although arguably ONEEVENT still applies since the hockey card was related to the day as an emergency goalie for the Blackhawks.  But then he got more coverage for his day as an emergency goalie for the Flyers in April   which was definitely a separate event from his Blackhawks event.  And getting significant coverage for two events is more than one event so WP:ONEEVENT does not apply in this case (BLP2E, admittedly an essay not a guideline but relevant here). Rlendog (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. NHOKEY is still inferior to GNG, and it acknowledges it: "Q: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? A: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline". The one-paragraph news like or  don't, imho, constitute significant coverage. PS. Notability ~ importance. Nothing in those sources suggests he is important, those sources are pretty much as close as you can get to footnote coverage in the sport media. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:37, 6 May 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.