Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid Boucher


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 02:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Reid Boucher

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject of article has not surpassed notability standards WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't even come close to passing NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - When I deprodded I thought more highly of the sources other than Star Ledger than I do now. DJSasso is probably correct about him not meeting GNG right now.  Rlendog (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Being selected as a First Team All-Star at the 2011 IIHF World U18 Championships qualifies as a preeminent honours to meet criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a question about that. The IIHF site actually lists an all-star team for the 2010 U18s.  But I do not see such a list on their site for the 2011 U18s.  Was the organization referenced in Boucher's article delegated the authority to determine the 2011 all-star team, or are the all-stars listed just one organization's opinion, rather than an official all-star team? Rlendog (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree that the IIHF World U18 Championships matches the definition of a "major junior league", so the First Team All-Star selection allows this player to pass criteria #4 of NHOCKEY. Oonissie (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The major junior leagues are 3 specific leagues. Western Hockey League, Ontario Hockey League, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. The word "major junior" isn't a generic term. Like Major League Baseball refers to the two leagues the American League and the National League. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is quite so clear cut. WP:NHOCKEY states "in a major junior league such as those of the Canadian Hockey League."  The Western Hockey League, Ontario Hockey League and Quebec Major Junior Hockey League make up the Canadian Hockey League.  But the CHL is provided as an example, and obviously does not cover leagues outside Canada (and the few US cities represented)m which leaves room for interpretation for leagues outside Canada (and perhaps even within Canada) and for international junior tournaments, such as the IIHF U18s. Rlendog (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also say that the USHL is a "major junior league". Dolovis (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's worded the way it is to show which league meets it. Other junior leagues outside Canada don't generate the kind of press the CHL does. In fact I would go as far as to make an educated guess that no other league does. The closest league might be the USHL and it gets little to no coverage in national media. Previous discussions have of course shown consensus doesn't agree the USHL is a major junior league so if it doesn't meet that level then its likely no other league in the world does. As for international tournaments, it was only recently agreed the World Juniors met it. The U18 is below that level, so I can't see that it would meet this criteria as there is very little coverage of that tournament at all, never mind the individual award winners. Remember each criteria doesn't have to apply to every part of the world, all the criteria do is indicate when press coverage likely exists for the person who meets it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that a U18 all star is inherently notable. I am just saying that as NHOCKEY is written, I do not think it is necessarily an invalid interpretation to say it does.  Rlendog (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: A player that passes WP:NHOCKEY still has to pass WP:GNG. If someone doesn't pass WP:GNG, then their passing of WP:NHOCKEY becomes moot (ie: "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept"). This player does not pass WP:GNG, therefore, delete. – Nurmsook!  talk...  04:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If he passes NHOCKEY (which I am not convinced he does) then there is a presumption that he meets notability standards. Do you have evidence that he does not?  Certainly, his eliteprospects and hockeydb pages are reliable sources.  There may be other reliable sources that are not readily available online.  The purpose of NHOCKEY is to avoid the need for separately proving that a player meets GNG if he meets NHOCKEY. If he does meet NHOCKEY then I would have to conclude that he is sufficiently notable unless there is evidence to the contrary (including searches of off line sources and older stories that may no longer be easily accessable on line). Rlendog (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * NSPORTS specifically says meeting it does not mean they are notable and that you still have to prove they meet GNG. You don't have to prove they don't meet GNG (can't prove a negative). NHOCKEY is just a guideline to help you quickly guesstimate if they meet GNG. Yours is a common misconception that the entirety of NSPORTS tries to make sure people understand is not the case. Meeting or failing to meet any of the NSPORTS criteria is not in and of itself a reason to keep or not keep and that in the end you still have prove they meet GNG. NSPORTS is just meant as a way for people to not put articles up for deletion too fast because its harder to get the sources, but it doesn't switch the burden of proof around. -DJSasso (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:NSPORTS (These are consecutive sentences, but I am ignoring the paragraph breaks): "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline, or the sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept."  There is no requirement that having demonstrated that the sport specific criteria are met, one must also demonstrate that GNG is met too.  Hence the "or" in the first quoted sentence.  As well as the notation that notability will need to be established in other ways when "failing to meet the criteria in this guideline," not in addition to meeting this guideline.  That said, I acknowledge that the last quoted sentence gives wiggle room to delete even if a subject meets the sports specific guideline.  However, I would expect there would be a particular reason given for making an for treating that specific case differently from other subjects for which it has been demonstrated meet WP:NSPORTS. Rlendog (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How could I have evidence that he is not notable? The lack of evidence that he is notable is in itself proof that he is not notable. As DJ says, you can't prove a negative. Further, eliteprospects and hockeydb are statistical databases. While they are reliable in the sense of statistics, they are not reliable sources to establish notability. Eliteprospects has, for instance, begun adding minor hockey stats to their site (ie: midget hockey). The purpose of NSPORTS and within that, NHOCKEY, is to allow users to assume someone is notable because they meet that standard. However, anyone can question their notability even if they pass any subsection of NSPORTS, which would result in the need to show proof that the athlete in question meets GNG. In life, one is innocent until proven guilty. On Wikipedia, one is not notable until proven notable. There is no requirement to "prove" someone is not notable. – Nurmsook!  talk...  17:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You indeed can question their notability even if they pass any subsection of NSPORTS. However, just because someone questions it doesn't obligate other editors "to show proof that the athlete in question meets GNG."  That would defeat the purpose of NSPORTS or any specific guideline.  If there are questions raised with reason to rebut the presumption of notability, then there is a need to prove the contrary.  But I don't see anyone providing any reason why this particular player should be treated differently than the presumption of notability that any other player who passes NHOCKEY gets (assuming he actually passes NHOCKEY, which I am not convinced of). Rlendog (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of these guidelines is to give rules of thumb to people creating articles for what to think of when they create them and for people thinking about deleting an article. In other words it gives the person thinking about deleting an article an idea that there is probably (but not guaranteed) sources to meet GNG so they should reconsider nominating it. GNG of course being required of all articles which is stated on the GNG page. It isn't actually meant to be a way to overrule GNG which is what the sentences at the top of the page indicates that meeting this criteria doesn't necessarily mean the page must be kept. All that being said once it is brought to Afd it is expected that those sources be found if its notability is questioned. -DJSasso (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sports guidelines provide rules of thumb. But I've been involved in plenty of AfDs (and I think you have too) where the issue was settled on the basis of the topic specific guidelines without requiring a search for more sources - i.e., a dozen keeps come up saying meets criterion X of the particular guideline.  I am not sure why this player should be treated any differently.  Sometimes there may be a reason, but someone just making a demand without suggesting any reason why this player would not meet GNG despite meeting the specific guideline should not, and generally does not, force a search for additional sources (of course, there must be at least one for a BLP, but in the case of hockey players the stat sites make that requirement pretty trivial).  That said, all the people arguing here seem to agree about this player's notability, so this debate has probably gotten way out of hand, probably my fault, at least with respect to this particular AfD. Rlendog (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —Dolovis (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Nurmsook has it backwards when he says that a player who passes NHOCKEY must also pass GNG. Countless AFDs have created precedents that support the practice that if a player passes NHOCKEY, then he is presumed notable and further proof of GNG is not required; however if he fails NHOCKEY then the article can still be kept if the player passes GNG. Reid Boucher meets criteria #4 of NHOCKEY so he is presumed notable, so the significant and reliable coverage found    is just more iceing on the cake. Dolovis (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually that isn't the case at all, yes they often close that way but GNG must always be met. Afds don't set precedent, that is one key standard on wikipedia. That being said your 4 sources the first two are blogs which aren't reliable for notability. The 3rd is the Devils site which isn't independent and the fourth isn't significantly about him. -DJSasso (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, I definitely don't have it backwards Dolovis. When NSPORTS was created, it was done so that users could assume notability of an athlete. If a player is, say, an award winner, we can assume that player will have received significant coverage to establish his notability. However, that coverage is not always there. So, when the bio in question is challenged, proof the subject in question passes GNG must be provided. NSPORTS doesn't trump GNG. The whole purpose of NSPORTS is to "help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." This opening statement of NSPORTS identifies that an article is only merited though passing of GNG. This is an incredibly important thing to consider when we are dealing with BLPs. While the original creator of a BLP can assume someone to be notable through NSPORTS, if that notability is not proved and the subject does not meet GNG, it is in violation of BLP and faces AfD. You know, I can presume Casey Anthony killed her child, but according to a jury of her peers, I would be making an incorrect presumption. We can always presume something to be true, or in this case, someone to be notable. NSPORTS was created because 90% of the time, our presumptions are correct. However, there are those cases where we presume incorrectly. This is one of those cases. – Nurmsook!  talk...  14:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: I swear to God, I bitterly regret penning that "preeminent honor" clause, because people seem to have a far shakier grasp of what "preeminent" means than I would have figured. That being said, of course the U18 Championships aren't a "league," major or otherwise.  It's a tournament, and we have never considered tournament play alone - short of the Olympics and the senior World Championships - to confer notability.  If Dolovis or Rlendog wishes to advocate changing the criteria on this point, they should seek consensus on the NSPORTS talk page.  AfD is an improper venue to do an end around on the criteria.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  14:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: What the "preeminent honor" clause means is determined by consensus; and consensus has already decided that MVP of the Memorial Cup (tournament play) is a preeminent honor. Dolovis (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: The Memorial Cup, of course, is the championship of the major junior CHL, and its MVP is analagous to the Conn Smythe winner in the NHL. However, the subject of this article has never played major junior hockey, let alone competed for the Memorial Cup, let alone won the tourney's MVP award, so I'm at a loss as to understanding the relevance of your comment. There is no league attached to these other competitions, and quite aside from that, no consensus claims any particular status for their awards.  You cannot claim that a consensus on one issue presupposes that that will apply to all other issues.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  16:31, 6 July 2011 (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.