Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Wilson (ice hockey)


 * 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. causa sui (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Scott Wilson (ice hockey)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Scott Wilson is a player who has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Wilson has some coverage, but it is routine hockey coverage at blogs and university paper. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 19:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * delete I could give a snappy comment about him being a prospect at 209th overall two years ago, fact is everyone drafted will have something written about them somewhere, but what makes him stand out as notable? donno not demonstrated in the articel and therfore i say delete. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Don't delete" This article is not about Scott Wilson getting drafted into the NHL, yes it is mentioned, but just because people think he didn't go high enough in the draft, is almost totally irrelevant to the deletion of this article. There are plenty of articles on here that are about people who I personally don't think are "notable", I don't think Miley Cyrus is notable, is her page going to get deleted? probably not, anf that does not mean it should get deleted, if you don't need information on him, don't look him up. The information is correct, it is not stating anything offensive of untrue. There really is no reason at all for this to be deleted because it is not providing false information to anybody. So don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilson9191 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He has just not achieved anything yet to qualify. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd say playing for team canada is pretty notable. And honestly,just yesterday he scored 2 goals at the pittsburgh camp, he's clearly going to be great. Don't talk about what you dont know anything about.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilson9191 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read our guidelines: WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. That's what we go by. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 02:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what "we" go by is wrong. I understand the need to keep uniformity in what we do, but we also shouldn't be censoring articles that people want to read and will click on.  These guidelines are being treated like rules set in stone.  This is a collaborative project, and what people deem to be important and/or notable is going to change over time.  The more and more people and sports organizations and companies are connected to the internet, the more people are going to want information about them.  In most cities an AHL team or WHL team will be the largest attraction they will identify with.  That's what will be important to them...even if it's not covered as much as Sidney Crosby's every bowel movement is.  If we have to discuss removing NHL drafted players on a daily basis from Wikipedia because they haven't achieved some arbitrary notability guideline yet, then it is possible that the guidelines are the problem and not that people keep adding supposedly non-notable pages.  If we're going to delete drafted players then we might as well delete the NHL draft list pages for the most recent years because after all, it is just a list of mostly "non-notable" players. Ordoinc (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * These rules were developed by consensus, not someone's point of view. You are entitled to your own point of view, but we have to work collaboratively here. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Being drafted by an NHL team should imply notability. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ice hockey  Ordoinc (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - No. Only first-rounders are likely to have notability. Lower-rounders are much less likely (like 5% chance) to achieve notability. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't go around making up ridiculous statistics. A recent study has found that 19% of drafted players go on to play over 200 NHL games. For a player to play in just a single NHL game, or to otherwise meet one of the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY, is much higher. One need to only look at the evidence from past drafts (for example, the 2005 NHL Entry Draft where only 42 red lines remain from 230 drafted players, so 82% have achieved notability). Dolovis (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If a first-rounder has nearly 100% notability rate, then the lower rounds must have a lower notability rate than that. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that it really matters, but most draftees do seem to become notable at some point. Not all play in the NHL, but of those that do not, many go on to play 100+ games in the AHL or go on to play in major European leagues.  I took a look at the 2001 draft, and in the 6th and 7th rounds 19 or 20 (I may have lost count at one point) of the 62 drafted players have played in the NHL, so just under 1/3.  But assuming that the blue links are all notable (I didn't see anything eggregeous, but I didn't count up AHL games, for example), then more than 2/3 of the players even at what today would be the last two rounds of the draft eventually attained notability.  That said, it is not really relevant here, since at this point this player has done nothing to meet WP:NHOCKEY, and although I haven't searched for sources per WP:GNG I suspect he will fall short for now at least. Rlendog (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't yet meet GNG or NHOCKEY.  Can be re-created if he ever meets either.  Patken4 (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon further reading of |WP:NSPORT, Scott Wilson meets NSPORT under Amateur Sports Persons for winning a Silver Medal in international play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ordoinc (talk • contribs) 06:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The WJAC is not the highest level of international play (e.g. the Olympics), it's merely a tournament with international content. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:NSPORT doesn't say it has to be the highest level of international play, simply that they "have won a national award" is enough for college athletes. Ordoinc (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That refers to an individual award such as the Hobey Baker. A team award would not be sufficient. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and enough speculation I'm surprised to see so much discussion of whether this player will become notable or not, but it can stop right now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball about the notability of players.  Finally, the subject doesn't fulfill notability for amateur players, hockey players, and doesn't fulfill WP:GNG.  This is one big slap-shot deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails to meet GNG or NSPORT or NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if that changes. Right now its a big case of crystal ball. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I'd personally love to have every single hockey player known to mankind have articles on Wikipedia but that is simply not the case. Simply put he is not a professional hockey player so therefore he is not notable.  Once he becomes one either with Pittsburgh, Wilkes-Barre/Scranton or another pro-level hockey team then by all means he can have his article.  I don't always agree with the guidelines for notability not just for hockey players but those are the guidelines after all and we have to work around them and work with them. Raphie (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. May attain notability eventually, but not yet. Rlendog (talk) 17:08, 20 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.