Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxime Macenauer (2nd nomination)

: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. The speedy delete argument most likely refers to WP:CSD#G4, as nothing has changed since the last AfD. With regards to Mkativerata's argument, regardless of the merits of NHOCKEY vs. GNG, the sources presented are trivial. The first one is about how his team won a game and he had a hat trick (Macenauer is not subject of a news article about him); the other two are about him being moved around in the junior leagues. Finally, there has not been any actual expansion of the article based on the sources, so as it stands, it is a two-line unreferenced BLP. Maxim(talk) 21:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
    {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxime Macenauer}}

:{{la|Maxime Macenauer}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Maxime Macenauer}})

=[[Maxime Macenauer]]=

Minor league hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Dolovis (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Already deleted through AfD once and nothing has changed. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • :Actually if you have a careful look at the sources, his career has changed quite significantly since the last AfD. Whether or not he's notable is another question. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

::*Comment: Just out of curiosity, since you mention taking "a careful look at the sources," when you declined the prod with "changed circumstances since last AfD - player now plays in a different league that might meet WP:ATH," did you actually look at the guideline you were quoting? Allow me to refresh your memory: "Played 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." As a cursory look at the link provided in the article shows, Macenauer has played 73 games in such leagues as of today. It is not enough to speculate whether or not the subject of an article fulfills a guideline. We ought to know, and we sure as hell ought to know before suggesting that other people take the twenty seconds to examine the evidence that we declined to take.  Ravenswing  06:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

:::*I think you are conflating A7 with notability (I declined speedy deletion). I was well aware that he didn't meet 100 games (I actually thought it was only 26). In any case, 73 vs 100 is close enough to notability per WP:ATH that the case should certainly be sent here rather than summarily deleting someone's work. When this last went to AfD, the number wasn't 73, it was 0. Our guidelines are malleable enough that being under 100 games shouldn't be grounds for instant summary deletion. It is the "nothing has changed" argument that is in complete contradiction with fact. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

::::*I should add that there appear to be a number of sources that cover Macenauer, some of which apparently in a significant way (eg [http://www.rds.ca/midgetaaa/chroniques/172573.html]). This is all the more reason not to summarily delete (as opposed to delete through AfD) an article that falls marginally below an arbitrary threshhold. Again, Just about all of the sources come after the last AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete for now per nom as player has not met any of the notability requirements yet of WP:NHOCKEY. Though this is a statement that is against WP:CRYSTAL, I expect this player to achieve notability before the end of February as he should by then surpass the 100-game threshold in the AHL/ECHL by that time. -Pparazorback (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

:*Probably, yes, but how many can't-misses fell victim to a career-ending injury or other such mishap? It ain't over 'til it's over.  Ravenswing  15:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

::*Which is why I did explicitly acknowledge that the statement was WP:CRYSTAL. -Pparazorback (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. WP:NHOCKEY is not the only way for a hockey player to attain notability. None of the contributors to this AfD have considered the applicability of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. WP:NHOCKEY, part of WP:NSPORT actually says it is subservient to the GNG. The GNG is particularly important when the subject only marginally fails the arbitrary subject-specific criteria, as is the case here. The GNG asks for significant coverage in reliable sources. The GNG appears to be met here. Macenauer is the subject of [http://www.rds.ca/midgetaaa/chroniques/172573.html]. If you trawl through the many pages of Gnews hits, there are more than enough articles that describe Macenauer's various moves between leagues and franchises in order to map out his career (eg [http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/juniors/2009/02/12/rivalry_q/] and [http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/04/sports/la-sp-newswire-20101005]). (And they're examples of the freely available stuff, there is yet more promising-looking material behind paywalls). At the least, the following delete !votes ought to be disregarded:
  • Realkychick: a drive-by !vote that doesn't address the article in any way, instead calling for "speedy deletion" (on what criterion?) on the false premise that "nothing has changed" when indeed the subject's career has changed significantly since the last AfD.
  • Dolovis, Bhockey10 and Pparazorback who fail to consider the GNG. NHOCKEY says "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline". These !votes ought to have no weight for not considering this explicit direction. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2010 (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.