Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kane Lafranchise


 * 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   keep. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Kane Lafranchise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Low minor league hockey player that fails WP:GNG. PROD was disputed on the basis of passing WP:NHOCKEY, however that SNG only presumes notability on the basis of meeting an arbitrary statistical target. It does not guarantee notability, and there isn't really anything beyond routine coverage. There is a reprinting of a team release announcing he signed a new contract a couple days ago and his "winning" a competition for having the goofiest name, but nothing non-trivial. Resolute 19:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Resolute 19:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Kane Lafranchise is a current professional ice hockey player who passes NHOCKEY having played 170+ professional games, and he will play more this comming season. Outreels (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have already explained why passing NHOCKEY does not guarantee notability in this case. Se also WP:SPORTCRIT, which is the basic criteria for the sports notability guideline, which an athlete also has to pass for NHOCKEY to even apply. Would you care to address that aspect of the problem? Resolute 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Between playing over 170 games in the AHL and ECHL and a three-year college career with Alaska-Anchorage, Lafranchise easily meets NHOCKEY. (Note: I am disinterested in any "commentary" on my vote. I have stated why I believe the article should be kept. Let it be.) -- Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 17:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete – WP:NHOCKEY is only a presumption of notability. WP:NHOCKEY is not a checkbox list where you can say that "This player meets criteria x of WP:NHOCKEY, so this player should have an article!". Even if the player meets WP:NHOCKEY, you still need to find references asserting that the player meets the general notability guideline for notability on Wikipedia. Hey  mid  (contribs) 08:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - He's going into his fourth season of professional hockey. He specifically meets criteria #3 by playing more than 100 games in the fully professional minor leagues (AHL and ECHL). You might as well just throw out NHOCKEY if  you are going to ignore the presumption of notability for such an established professional hockey player. NSPORTS was created by a consensus of editors and, per that consensus, this article must be kept unless you are able to demonstrability prove that sufficient sources do not exist. In this case, the rebuttal of the presumption of notability has not been met. Dolovis (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You've been around far too long to seriously expect anyone to buy such a silly argument, Dolovis. You are well aware that the burden of proof is yours, and you have to demonstratibly prove that sources do exist. And since you agree that NSPORTS is applicable, then please demonstrate, per NSPORTS, that Lafranchise has been the subject of multiple published, non-trivial, secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. And keep in mind that NHOCKEY only establishes the presumption of notability. I am challenging that presumption.  By all means, show me the sources that establish notability. Resolute 22:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:NSPORTS states (and I quote): "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." and that standard has been met within the article. Dolovis (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're admitting that you cannot find non-trivial coverage from reliable sources then? Resolute 23:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: The very FIRST page of G-News -- not standard hit, Google News -- returns comes up with substantive articles from the Anchorage Daily News. Toss in the notoriety from that Hockey News poll for Best Hockey Name that Lafranchise won, and I'd say that there's no reason to overturn NHOCKEY just because Resolute feels that minor leaguers shouldn't be considered notable.   Ravenswing   23:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I expect you will support your statement that I feel "minor leaguers shouldn't be considered notable" or retract it, Ravenswing. Disagree with me all you want, but be honest about it.  I disagree that minor league players who lack non-trivial coverage from multiple sources should be considered notable. And Lafranchise didn't "win" anything.  His name was highlighted for being goofy.  That's hardly an establishment of notability.  Nor is it a source that is substantively about the player. And yes, I saw the links on Google News. Unlike others, I research before nominating or creating pages. Everything there is routine coverage. Resolute 00:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be this proposal of yours, just last month, in which you advocated removing all presumptive notability criteria for all levels of minor leaguers.   Ravenswing   19:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, and I explicitly argued to determine notability on a case by case basis. That is a very far cry from arguing that "minor leaguers shouldn't be considered notable".  Many are, but many are not. Resolute 19:58, 27 August 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.