Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Packer

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. A number of sources were identified, but there is fundamental disagreement about the quality of those sources, with plausible arguments made on both sides. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Packer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Certainly fails NHOCKEY, no evidence she meets the GNG. Ravenswing 18:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets
  WP:GNG and plays in top American league. "The sources on the page are either not independent or are blogs/passing mentions." is not accurate. Hmlarson (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: As has been explained to you a number of times already, the NWHL is certainly not a "top American league" and playing in it satisfies no notability criteria, past or present. Beyond that, I'll pose a question to you that likewise has been posed to you a number of times over: would you care to identify specific cites that you claim meet the GNG? Ravenswing 20:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  WP:ROUTINE coverage and stats pages. Yosemiter (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Yosemiter: Yes, as noted towards the very end of the previous discussion in response to your note that you find SB Nation "a highly useful site for routine day-to-day info on specific teams" and "possibly a reliable source for background information" ... I wrote, "I frequent SB Nation sites/blogs also -- perhaps initially drawn to them by the frequency of their use as citations in other sports-related articles on Wikipedia... SB Nation Editorial Board and reach. 'Independence standards' are subjective (see also Fox News and RT as a reliable source), thanks for sharing your take." Hmlarson (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is, of course, a difference between sources sufficient to support assertions made in an article (for which primary sources are often quite acceptable) and sources meeting the standards required to support the notability of the subject. Certainly in the hockey Wikiproject we rely heavily on nhl.com, the Internet Hockey Database, hockey-reference.com and eliteprospects.com, without the slightest misimpression that any of those sites can contribute squat to notability. Ravenswing 22:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• As Ravenswing mentions, a source can be reliable for sourcing a bit of information while not providing evidence of notability. SB Nation just reposts blogs from blog sites, as such they don't support notability, sites like eliteprospects are just stats sites so don't show notability, but both might be reliable for something like a stat or who scored a goal etc. -DJSasso (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Madison Packer is an alternate captain for one of the top women's ice hockey leagues, and is individually significant to women's ice hockey. I disagree that the sources cited are all blogs - women's ice hockey reporting is unfortunately somewhat segregated from 'ice hockey' reporting, but women's sports journalism is still independent sports journalism with notability and an audience. Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Then by all means explain which ones on the page are not blogs. The B in SB Nation literally stands for Blog. The issue isn't that they don't have an audience. It is that blogs don't meet the requirements of being a reliable source for notability on Wikipedia. Being notable on Wikipedia isn't about audience or popularity or being significant in a sport. It only comes from being reported on in
  reliable sources. And even if you included the two SB Nations blogs, they just mention her in passing, they don't go into depth about her as required. -DJSasso (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep SB Nation is a reliable source which has been cited by national sports media such as ESPN, and has on many occasions broken major stories themselves. Maybe the B originally stood for blog, but it's like SAT. The abbreviation has outlived its purpose, but there's too much inertia to change it. Which is why nobody calls it "Sports Blog Nation", nor have they for some time. Fails
  WP:GNG on these mentions. Smartyllama (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Appears notable along with NWHL's salary troubles. Alaney2k (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Unfortunately, I am not seeing sources beyond the routine coverage that any minor league player would receive and since I don't hold GNG to a lower standard for women, there just is not enough in depth coverage from independent sources. There are better covered women and this is very borderline at best. However, if kept, I do not think it is obscenely bad as compared to other pages. Yosemiter (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've had no trouble finding plenty of reliable sources for this player. She seems to have stepped up as a spokesperson for women's hockey. While I don't think the sources impress the other editors, I don't know if anything will. :-) Women's hockey seems to be of little interest to the men's hockey media. Alaney2k (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing more than routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The only reliable source I see that provides significant coverage of the subject is Excelle Sports. A single source is not enough to meet GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG coverage is routine.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Fails to meet
  WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment An article about Packer was posted by
  Sporting News today [1]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Fails
  WP:GNG given in-depth coverage in reliable sources (e.g. Wisconsin State Journal, The Hockey Writers, the SB Nation sources, Sporting News link above). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep it is clear that this passes
  WP:GNG and there is coverage about her in many reliable sources. Tag is appropriate here for any concern but not deleting. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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.