Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Brittany Howard (hockey)

As far as whether the notability guidelines are "skewed," they most certainly are: in favor of people likely to meet the GNG. Alaney2k, I'm startled to see you saying that there should be a discussion of this, because you should be well aware that the notability of women's hockey generally has been extensively discussed, on the WikiProject, the NSPORTS and the NHOCKEY/LA talk pages. The simple fact of the matter, however regrettable, is that even in hockey hotbeds, the coverage women's competitions receive in the media is scanty at best; by way of example, the Boston team winning the inaugural NWHL championship was not covered in the Boston Globe, and I only found out about it at all reading a blogpost on the THN site. As such, no one has yet to establish that any level of women's hockey confers proven presumptive notability, and therefore notability for any female hockey player rises and falls on the GNG.   Ravenswing   17:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not a member of the hockey project. Haven't been for quite some time. I used to participate and I found the talk pages took up time that I prefer to spend on editing. So I don't keep tabs. I do some editing on hockey articles still, though. If I were to make a suggestion, then NHOCKEY probably should have a level of notability calculation like is done for AHL players for women's pro players. There are even women in the Hockey Hall of Fame now, and that hall is heavily skewed to the NHL (and to the Maple Leafs too :-.. Anyway, it will likely come anyway. Howard is notable in her field. I feel like what your point comes down to is that field just doesn't appear enough in the regular media to actually count. And that's understandable. (I have a low opinion of media coverage of sports in general.) I suggested moving the article to Draft as it seems likely (again IMO) that she will pass soon. Articles in draft don't have to be fixed up in 7 days I think. Alaney2k (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You have been around long enough to know that big in their sport and notable in terms of Wikipedia notable are two different things. In order to qualify for an article you must be covered in reliable sources. Wikipedia just follows what the sources cover, they tend not to cover most female players beyond Olympians. And I completely agree it would be nice to see media coverage grow for them, but here at Wikipedia we don't right great wrongs. But no Draft can't really be used to avoid deletion in the same way you can't move to user space to avoid deletion unless it has a hope of being fixed quickly and put back into article space. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's too bad. Draft: seems like a good spot for this article. Pardon my soapboxing. I recognize that maybe it belongs in another place but here it is more pertinent. I still suggest that NHOCKEY be updated to include some spec about women's hockey. It's not quite encyclopedic as is. What Bill said about Howard compared to a one-game NHLer is basically true. Maybe the best women's player ever at RMU, 1st-team NCAA all star. NHOCKEY might then be considered sexist and defective. I mean, most of the coverage about the later NHL first-rounders is pretty routine stuff too, like from NHL websites and media dedicated to the sport and have money tied up in it. And look at all the one-game stub player articles. Just try to get sources on players from before, oh 1980. So media hits are not the only criteria. Because those one-gamers probably don't have the sources to pass the GNG, yet they pass NHOCKEY. Alaney2k (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Quick and easy pre-Internet sources aren't easy to obtain for many a biographical article, Wikipedia-wide. Sorry, but Wikipedia still isn't here to Right Great Wrongs.  I will support a change to address women's hockey in NHOCKEY just as soon as you or anyone else can demonstrate that players who meet any such proposed change can generally satisfy the GNG.  I will not, by contrast, support for the fraction of an instant any rules change out of tokenism.  To paraphrase myself from a 2010 AfD, "[t]here is a school of thought circulating around Wikipedia that if there is some putative excuse for reliable sources not to be found on a particular subject, the requirements of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO are suspended. This curious notion has no basis in policy or guideline.  Wikipedia is under no onus to be "culturally sensitive" to a group's lack of documentation for their deeds.  The only acceptable response is "Then a Wikipedia article on her cannot be sustained."   Ravenswing   20:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet somehow a lot of those stubs have never been AfDed. I mean really - one-game players for the Canadiens in the 1910s or 20s are notable? They might be listed in the NHL Guide and nowhere else. There is a little disconnect there if NHOCKEY can be used to support those where GNG is likely not provable. It is subjective, not some science-based criteria. Somehow I feel like I am being tagged as arguing for affirmative action when I'm only trying to suggest where NHOCKEY is a bit lacking and could use some review. Like somehow reviewing it could 'cheapen' Wikipedia. I instead think the current NHOCKEY can be considered biased or incomplete and therefore not what I consider encyclopedic. It is probably true of most sports coverage in Wikipedia. Arrgh. This is why I dropped out of WP:HOCKEY. Alaney2k (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But you are effectively arguing for affirmative action, you are essentially saying that even though there are no sources for a subset of articles that we should ignore the need for references to make things more "equal". That or you are playing devil's advocate just for the hell of it. Neither is a very good position. NHOCKEY/GNG is the opposite of biased, it is based on cold hard quantitative evaluation of are there sources or aren't there. Biased would be ignoring the need for sources just to make things equal when the rest of the world (reliable sources) doesn't consider it so. And you seemed to imply above that media dedicated to a subject becomes routine, but that isn't the case or sources for pretty much everything would be routine, science texts for scientists, music magazines for musicians etc etc. Quite the opposite is true, its those places we expect to find the coverage of notable people in a subject area. -DJSasso (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that at all. I just suggested that NHOCKEY could use a clause for women's hockey. It's you guys who have freaked out. That said, it still looks to me like Howard is at least equal or more notable than those 1-game NHL player stubs if we are going by media hits and references. Alaney2k (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But there is one, play in the World Championships (which is the typical requirement for almost every sport and gender besides a few of the major pro sports). Below that level there simply isn't the coverage to say every player that meets X gets enough coverage. It is possible that there is some award out there that might gain a player that coverage every time. But for such specific rare things it is easier to allow those players to fall directly to GNG. But when for example the team that won the pro NWHL championship last year doesn't even get covered in their local press when they won, do you honestly think we can make a case of the individual players all being covered? -DJSasso (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but GNG doesn't specify a precise number of sources/refences. A lot of the coverage of men's players is directed by media with a vested interest. E.g. Sportsnet heavily promotes the Blue Jays and the coverage is immense. We hear about every blister. They have a lot invested. Their deal with the NHL is similar. The same goes for all of the major media. I don't believe it would be possible at this time for a female player to get that sort of attention. So, I wouldn't expect the same number of hits. I wouldn't expect the same kind of coverage. But there is a certain level of notability that is attainable and possible to discern. It is not going to be the same as the men's. Quantifying that or acknowledging that is not going to be as simple as one-game in the NHL. For one thing, it is more of a sport in development. But I'd say it's appropriate to acknowledge what notability is available. I know some people think this is affirmative action, but I'm just hoping for something more encyclopedic. I mean, soccer players dwarf hockey players in media hits and coverage worldwide. Yet, you guys have figured out what seems to work for hockey, except for women's hockey. For the men's, the pinnacle is pro, but that's not the same for women's. Their top level is college and international. So it's different. Smaller, yes. But Wikipedia is smaller in scope without it. Again, I'm not trying to right a wrong. Things are the way they are. I'm just saying using the men's standard for hockey, is like expecting the soccer standard of coverage for hockey players. It's just a suggestion. I'm not saying let's dig up every last women's player and give them an article, just suggesting figuring out a standard for women's hockey that makes sense considering the nature of the sport. Alaney2k (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No one is "freaking out" here, any more than you'd likely appreciate being accused of "ranting and raving." But what you've failed to articulate in all of this is a simple thing: why? Don't give us a vague "it's encyclopedic argument.  What is so vital about this that you believe it essential that we ignore our mandate to ensure our notability standards can satisfy the GNG?  And what other classes of hockey could just as rightly fall under this penumbra?  Wheelchair hockey?  Youth hockey, something that's been highly organized for a century now and which has received a good bit of press over the years?  There were a number of recent AfDs of Turkish hockey players ... isn't Turkey a proud nation which deserves more hockey coverage, even if its own domestic media doesn't agree?  That's my question: why?   Ravenswing   09:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)