Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Fields


 * 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. Mr.Z-man 01:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sam Fields

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass the WP:HOCKEY requirements. does not appear to have the coverage necessary to justify a BLP. Article was copy-paste moved from AFC project space. Hasteur (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – The nom is incorrect. This player easily passes WP:NHOCKEY with 140 games played in the Central Hockey League and another 72 in the West Coast Hockey League, both professional minor leagues. Dolovis (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, no the nom is entirely correct. As you are well aware but routinely ignore Dolovis, WP:HOCKEY and WP:NSPORT only presume notability on the basis of arbitrary statistics. And in this case, the player is an utter fail of WP:GNG. I can't find anything resembling non-trivial coverage. And none should really be expected of a player who appeared only in bottom-of-the-barrel leagues. Resolute 23:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Resolute sums it up pretty much perfectly. WP:NHOCKEY only presumes notability. You need to still be able to back it up by meeting GNG. And I can find no evidence that this player does so. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment to those who want to throw away WP:NHOCKEY:
 * This article meets the standard for inclusion because is does "provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria" as required by WP:NSPORTS. Fields meets criteria #3 of WP:NHOCKEY for having played 217 games in fully professional minor leagues. The reason that we have NHOCKEY is because a consensus of editors have decided that an ice hockey player is to be presumed notable if he has reached certain milestones in his career. This player has reached and surpassed that established criteria. The article is now well sourced to verify this player's professional career and accomplishments. By virtue of NSPORTS, it can be presumed that additional sources exist which would be located with a proper search of non-internet hard-copy sources (if one has use of a microfiche reader and access to newspapers and magazines from the period he was active). But time is in short supply for all of us editors, which is why the standards of WP:NSPORTS exist. Dolovis (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand why it would be necessary for this person to meet the GNG if he already meets NHOCKEY. NSPORTS states "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."  The "or" looms large here it would seem to me.  Nowhere is it stated that GNG must be met in addition to NHOCKEY.  I would bet dollars to donuts we could find NHL and/or Olympic players who meet NHOCKEY while failing GNG, probably quite a few, yet I doubt we could reach consensus to delete any of them.  I also fail to see how deleting the page would further the interest of the project as a whole.  In any case, there seems to be agreement that he does, in fact, meet the requirements of NHOCKEY.  If GNG must be met regardless of NHOCKEY then what is the purpose of NHOCKEY? Rejectwater (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See Notability (sports)/FAQ for more information on the relationship between the sports-specific notability guidelines and the general notability guideline. From their inception up to now, the consensus view for these guidelines is that they do not replace the general notability guideline, but simply provide some buffer time to avoid deletion until it can be established if Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are met, by finding or failing to find appropriate sources. isaacl (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you for providing that link, I had been unaware of that information.  I was reading the guideline and looking right past the FAQ box. Rejectwater (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be pointed out that Notability (sports)/FAQ goes on to state: "For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics" (i.e. the criteria of NHOCKEY which establishes the presumption of notability as decided by a consensus of editors knowledgeable on the topic). Dolovis (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have persons in mind you would like to compare him to? Rejectwater (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The other persons to compare him to would be professional ice hockey players who have played 5 years of minor professional hockey in North America. Do you require a list of names, and if so, how many names do you want? Dolovis (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Any would suffice, at least to start. As long as it is other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics. Rejectwater (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For someone who played in the 1990s in major cities, I'm certain there are reliable sources available covering the teams for which he played, so it's not necessary to look at other contingencies. isaacl (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

 Keep - While I wouldn't advocate for users to create articles on players who have solely participated in lower-level leagues (i.e. ones below the AHL and ECHL), I am not in favor of deleting such articles once they have been created. This player meets NHOCKEY and his presumed notability has not been rebutted. -- Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 23:18, 11 October 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.