Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Lavoie


 * 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. Tone 21:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Kristina Lavoie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG. In doing a search I could find no evidence they meet GNG. They also do not meet WP:NHOCKEY which requires women's hockey players to have played in the World Championships or Olympics. DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fairly or not, the National Women's Hockey League is not listed by WP:NHOCKEY as a league that hands every player an automatic inclusion freebie the moment they skate onto the ice, which is the only notability claim being attempted here — there's no claim whatsoever of the "preeminent honours" distinctions that it takes to make a player notable if they peaked below the NHOCKEY #1 level. But the referencing is entirely to primary sources that do not count as support for notability, so there's no argument to be made that she clears WP:GNG in lieu of not passing NHOCKEY either. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant independent coverage to show that WP:GNG is met and there's no evidence that she meets any criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Indifferent Under current standards I can understand it is a 'delete', however I wonder if we should have a further discussion on the notability of women's professional leagues, moving forward.–uncleben85 ( talk ) 04:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We have several times, including a very in-depth review less than a year ago. Currently, the independent media still treats women's leagues similar or even less than the ECHL. A lot of people wanted to believe the CWHL and NWHL to be justified for inclusion further into NHOCKEY (including myself), but there was not enough actual evidence of verifiable and reliable independent sources. The NWHL gets 99% of its routine coverage from SB Nation bloggers (often, not the actual paid journalists or editors). Unfortunately, and honestly, I have had hard time just trying to find reliable routine info on the leagues and teams, much less about players. So yeah, we have discussed the topic of "automatic" presumed notability for women's hockey players quite a bit. Yosemiter (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with that it's more alarming that we have such strict criteria for women athletes compared to men than this particular instance. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * None of us are excluding women from NHOCKEY. It is not "stricter", it is just as strict for men's players in that the subject should meet GNG. NHOCKEY is written in a way that if any subject meets the listed criteria then they consistently meet GNG. Meeting GNG is dictated by significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and no women's league or its players has been proven to be consistently well covered by the media. Hence, the leagues could not be included after several discussion. Listing leagues that do NOT meet an SNG, women's and men's (there are plenty of men's leagues that are not included in NHOCKEY and only one in North America where notability is automatically presumed by simply stepping on the ice) and thereby having the leagues "covered" by the SNG, is atypical and would likely not fly with the other NSPORTS editors. Women are included in the IIHF World Championship NHOCKEY#6. All other women's hockey players must pass GNG on their own merits (just like all hockey players and all subjects on Wikipedia). If you want this to change (and I think we all actually DO want the women's leagues to get more coverage), start with proving this player meets GNG or convince the independent media to actually start covering the leagues and its players. Yosemiter (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * if you can't see how this structure participates in a process of systemic bias I don't know what to tell you. But I'll concede that this is not the venue for this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, wikipedia guidelines follow current coverage, not lead the charge for fixing the systematic bias. Again, some of us here actually do attempt to watch and follow women's hockey. That is how we are trying to fix the system by telling the media "we want more". Loosening wikipedia SNGs to standards that will not meet GNG just because we want others to know about the subject is not allowed. Plenty of women hockey players can and do meet GNG just fine, but just not in a way that an SNG can be created. Yosemiter (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The notion that we hold female hockey players to a stricter standard than male ones is, frankly, laughable: no male player with Lavoie's resume would come remotely close to qualifying for an article, and no one would raise a finger to prevent its deletion for lack of notability. Do you, then, advocate that there is any reason for keeping this article other than that the subject is a woman?  If so, then heck, might as well write up an article for my thirteen year old niece, who plays in a youth league.  It is not that we do not understand what you're saying.  It's that we don't agree with what you're saying.   Ravenswing    21:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: The subject had a collegiate career without especial distinction, and played all of ten games in the NWHL. For a player from any professional league below the level of the NHL -- including leagues with many decades of history, with teams that sometimes have recorded better attendance for single games than any NWHL team's managed in a season -- this would be an abject failure of NHOCKEY.  I can understand the frustration of women's sports partisans, being one myself, but we cannot compel the world and the media to care about women's hockey, and so far, there's no evidence that they do.   Ravenswing    10:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete If she was a standout in College or some kind of award winner than she could be considered, but she is not. And I think we can dismiss the notion of the NWHL being somehow a "top" league regardless of its "professional" standing.  Looking at the rosters it is not a destination for the world's elite, the CWHL or the SDHL can lay a better claim to that right now.  It is not even attracting the top American players right now (Sidney Morin for example), but players who never even played in the top tier of collegiate hockey are there (Kayla Parsons for example).18abruce (talk) 13:15, 14 September 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.