Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gord Hampson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gord Hampson
Article was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds of notability, but doesn't qualify, because the subject passes WP:BIO: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league". I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like a work in progress. Redglasses 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Being an NHL player is directly in line with the cited WP:BIO guideline. --Marriedtofilm 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep Stubby article, but VERY NOTABLE subject. He played in the NHL. He is notable. end of story. A poorly written article is no reason for deletion; deletion should be based solely on the notability of the subject, NOT on the quality of the writing. Also, the article is brand new. It is a work in progress, and thus should be given some leeway. If you want some substancial proof, a google search turns up OODLES of notable information. Check it out. He's very notable.--Jayron32 06:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)- Vote changed. After I wipe the egg off my face and get my foot out of my mouth. See below--Jayron32 01:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Just being a pro athlete doesn't mean that they are deserving of an article. That part of WP:BIO is very flawed, and is not an end all to if someone gets an article or not. Looking at the google link, he has about 110 Ghits, which is very low. This player's NHL career was only 4 games, and nothing of note happened. There isn't "OODLES" of info here or there. Totally nn, regardless of the writing quality. Cornerbock 21:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps it's a flawed part of WP:BIO, but it's a part of WP:BIO nonetheless. So unless and until it is repealed, the criterion applies to all athletes, including Gord Hampson. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 21:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- reply' Ignore WP:BIO. Throw it out the window. Return to the primary notability criteria. Is there NONTRIVIAL COVERAGE IN MULTIPLE, RELIABLE SOURCES. Also, forget the total number of ghits. Did you even read the articles? People have extensive reviews of his playing style, his quality as a player, his contributions to the game of hockey. In reliable sources. It isn't a matter of a simple line on a stat page. He has non-trivial coverage. Its in many sources. The sources are reliable. The article is poorly written. That has no bearing on the inherent notability of the subject. HE is notable. The article is a stub. The article needs expansion using these sources, not deletion. Let the relevent wikiproject or other interested editors expand it. I wouldn't say this if he wasn't notable, but he WAS. --Jayron32 05:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- He is not notable, pretty much every link I saw is pretty much a retread of his stats. And if you have links that have other relevant yet important info, I'd like to see it. WP will turn into a virtual trasheap if every athlete gets an article. He had a so-so college career, and played 4 NHL games, with nothing of note. He is not notable in the least bit, and I don't like how you are trying to pump up the vote by saying such lies like "WP:BIO is right, so we must abide to it", it's a guideline, not a law. Cornerbock 19:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- reply' Ignore WP:BIO. Throw it out the window. Return to the primary notability criteria. Is there NONTRIVIAL COVERAGE IN MULTIPLE, RELIABLE SOURCES. Also, forget the total number of ghits. Did you even read the articles? People have extensive reviews of his playing style, his quality as a player, his contributions to the game of hockey. In reliable sources. It isn't a matter of a simple line on a stat page. He has non-trivial coverage. Its in many sources. The sources are reliable. The article is poorly written. That has no bearing on the inherent notability of the subject. HE is notable. The article is a stub. The article needs expansion using these sources, not deletion. Let the relevent wikiproject or other interested editors expand it. I wouldn't say this if he wasn't notable, but he WAS. --Jayron32 05:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's a flawed part of WP:BIO, but it's a part of WP:BIO nonetheless. So unless and until it is repealed, the criterion applies to all athletes, including Gord Hampson. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 21:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Vote changed to weak delete : OK. I am man enough to admit when I was wrong. I misread these pages (Mainly misreading the Colorado Flames as Calagary flames. Oops.). A keep arguement might be able to be made based on his College career (He did average almost a point a game during his senior year), but such an arguement could not be made on a 4-game NHL career. So I am moving to a weak delete. If we can find press on what people thought of his college play, I will change back. But I did not find it. --Jayron32 01:54, 30 October 2006 (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.
