Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie Levesque


 * 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. Technically, it is 7:4, which is below the conventional consensus threshold. The arguments of both sides are revolving against WP:N. Those who propose delete argue that since no sources have been found, the player is non-notable. Those who propose keep argue that he meets WP:NHOCKEY (based on RS) which is an indication that he might be notable, but the sources are difficult to find since he retired a while ago. Both arguments are valid, and since there is no strong prevalence, I close the discussion as no consensus defaulted as keep. There is no prejudice against checking the new consensus say a year from now.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Willie Levesque

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article violates WP:N, particularly failing to meet WP:SPORTCRIT. Article subject is a non-notable retired minor league hockey player. -- NINTENDUDE 64 13:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep - meets WP:NHOCKEY #3 "Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they...[p]layed at least 100 games in fully professional minor leagues such as the American Hockey League, the International Hockey League, the ECHL, the Mestis, the HockeyAllsvenskan or other such league." Per he played 98 games for the Cleveland Barons of the AHL and 31 games for the Johnston Chiefs of the ECHL. Thus, his total of 129 games in fully professional minor leagues shows he meets this standard. While this creates a presumption that can be rebutted, I do not think a simple assertion of '[a]rticle subject is a non-notable retired minor league hockey player' without any further rationale, evidence, or other convincing information overcomes this presumption. RonSigPi (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you fail to meet WP:SPORTCRIT, which is the basic criteria, then it doesn't really matter that you satisfy a condition of WP:NHOCKEY which does not explicitly say that notability is guaranteed. And more importantly, the article doesn't meet WP:N. There is a single citation for the article which says he's a doctor in Connecticut -- and it's not actually a source, it's a link to a doctor's web page and there's no evidence that it's the Willie Levesque from the article. And based on your last sentence, it seems like your saying this article is a keep because I have a short explanation for deletion. Personally, my criteria for my !vote consists of more than that and I examine the article and evaluate it against the policies and guidelines. -- NINTENDUDE 64 18:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not only do I not agree what you said, but I think what you wrote goes against WP:CIV. It is completely unnecessary to explain to me your personal standard for review to imply that my standard is not sufficient and I do not look at policies and guidelines (despite the fact I cited the WP:NHOCKEY guideline).  Back to the matter at hand, WP:SPORTCRIT is no different than WP:NHOCKEY from a functional standpoint - both create presumptions and not meeting one does not mean that the other is not met and/or valid.  However, it is clear that WP:NHOCKEY is met.  There is no question on that.  Now that it is met, there is a presumption of notability.  In my keep note I made it clear that this can be rebutted and thus is not a guarantee, so i don't know why that needs to be pointed out.  However, since the presumption is now established the burden shifts to those wanting to delete such an article to establish that the presumption is invalid.  The two delete votes below seem to have done some level of research to reach their conclusion that the presumption should be overcome.  Your Nom, however, merely says that the subject is non-notable without any evidence or rationale as to why the presumption should be overcome.  My last sentence was stating that if you want to nominate an article that has a presumption of notability, then you need to provide more evidence to overcome that presumption then a simple conclusion statement that is uncited.  And as far as the doctor link/source, that relates more to the quality of the article, not the notability of the subject.  The hockeydb external link shows enough evidence to establish that the presumption of notability is met. RonSigPi (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is completely unnecessary to explain to me your personal standard for review to imply that my standard is not sufficient -- That's because it isn't based on what you said. AfD eligibility is not based on the nomination text, which is one of your discussion points. It's based on whether the article is appropriate. Editors may make more in depth explanations if they choose, but I believe it's evident from just looking at the article that it's a candidate for deletion. And even though you did review policy guidelines, it appears you haven't interpreted it the correct way. You read that a subject is presumed notable and believe that means that there's some sort of burden of proof shift which is not the case. What is actually meant by presumed notability means that it's likely that reliable sources exist, but you still have to put the reliable sources in the article. But none exist in this case. The HockeyDB is not an independent source and it's not grounds for establishing notability. If a trade-specific database were grounds for notability, then every single actor would be on Wikipedia because they have information about them on IMDb. -- NINTENDUDE 64 20:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia "[t]he invocation of a presumption shifts the burden of proof from one party to the opposing party..."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption). Dictionary.com says "2. Law. to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Presume?s=t).  While both these are legal definitions, they are the most appropriate here.  So here there is a presumption that appropriate sources exist unless shown otherwise.  The two deletes attempt to show this - your nom did not and just stated opinion. RonSigPi (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. You're not quoting Wikipedia policy or guidelines. That is all. -- NINTENDUDE 64 00:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No I am not. I am looking at a dictionary and wikipedia to interpret what a guideline means, specifically to determine what is intended by the word 'presumption' in the guideline. RonSigPi (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * RonSigPi, instead of arguing, can you provide the sources that makes him meet WP:GNG to be considered for WP:NHOCKEY? No sources = no article, as GNG trumps anything in WP:ATHLETE as ATHLETE only presumes automatic notability and in this case, it is a gray area anyways because he played 34 extra games. Secret account 23:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NHOCKEY presumes notability, but does not guarantee it. There really is not much in the way of coverage aside from routine game reports.  Fails WP:GNG. Resolute 13:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NHOCKEY only presumes notability it does not confer notability. And as far as I can find in new sources there isn't enough (or anything really) about him to pass WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Former pro hockey player has played more than 100 games in the AHL and ECHL and therefore specifically passes criteria #3 of NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:GNG trumps WP:NHOCKEY Secret account 17:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Per RonSigPi and Dolovis. -- Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 17:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the sources that makes him meet WP:GNG to be considered for WP:NHOCKEY? No reliable sources = no article, and stats doesn't count Secret account 23:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, you have it backwards. By meeting the criteria of NHOCKEY, the subject is presumed notable unless proven otherwise. Not all reliable and independent sources will be found on-line, so meeting NHOCKEY creates the presumption of notability (i.e. that GNG can be established – even if not immediately identified). Per WP:PRESUMPTION: "A "rebuttable presumption" is an assumption that may be accepted as true until contested and proven to be wrong." In this case, the rebuttable presumption that he is notable has been established by the fact that he meets NHOCKEY. It is now upon you to rebut that presumption by proving that subject is, in fact, not notable (i.e. that you can demonstrate that you have concluded a thorough, but fruitless, search of all sources, on-line as well as other media) to rebut the presumption. Dolovis (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dolovis, WP:NHOCKEY only presumes notability, but it's not a guarantee that the individual is notable just because he passes WP:NHOCKEY. If a player passes WP:NHOCKEY, chances are that there are enough independent sources that establish the player's notability; in this case there aren't, unfortunately. Hey  mid  (contribs) 09:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NHOCKEY only presumes that there are sources until challenged at which point it is up to those who believe it does to prove that it does. If you read NSPORTS it even indicates that. It is just a rule of thumb to quickly judge something and that is all. It still has to be capable of being proved to have sources. As I am sure you are aware you can't prove a negative. You can't prove something doesn't exist. Which is why its up to the people who believe there are sources to prove they do exist. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment This player last played in 2004, so 9 years ago. A lot of webpages are not archived from that long ago on the Internet. Just because sources are not on the Internet does not mean they do not exist (and in turn GNG may be met even with a weak online presence). For those saying that there are not enough sources, is this based merely on Internet searches, such as through Google, or are they actually checking non-online sources (e.g., physical newspaper archives in Cleveland and Johnstown of their local newspapers)? RonSigPi (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete – WP:NHOCKEY won't—nor should—guarantee notability, although it does presume notability. In this case there aren't enough independent sources that make him pass the general notability guideline (GNG). Hey  mid  (contribs) 09:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dolovis.  Rcsprinter  (talk)  @ 10:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet the criteria for hockey players or GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * False Clearly meets criteria for hockey players by way of WP:NHOCKEY. The question would appear to be if the presumption caused by meeting such criteria is rebutted such that GNG is not met. RonSigPi (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - This isn't a court of law -- By meeting the criteria of NHOCKEY, the subject is presumed notable unless proven otherwise -- it's a written encyclopedia. If there is not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the Willie Levesque topic, then there is not enough available information to summarize for a written Wikipedia article. Presuming notable/importance still does not provide source information for the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:01, 21 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.