Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CASH line
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 Delete Even though Alaney2k has done good work with article, he has no address WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL, and there is consensus for that. --Maxim(talk) 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CASH line
Article fails WP:N as the name this line has been given is not yet notable as far as the history of the NHL goes. Perhaps time will prove me wrong, but Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball so we cannot assume that it will be notable in the future. The CASH line, in itself, is simply not yet notable, even though the players that are on it are obviously notable. Pparazorback (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Pparazorback (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
*Weak Oppose A basic search of online news found some mentions of the article. Also, if this line is being deleted, we are going to need to establish some set criteria of what lines are acceptable and what aren't. Also would have to go through and see how many articles are made about hockey lines; West coast Express comes to mind, and as someone from BC, I don't even find that article notable. All said, I find this to be setting a dangerous precident. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment To further what I already said, this article already has several sources, and while it may incoroporate a large body of text from the respective articles of the players on the line, it unites all three, something that is not done in detail anywhere else. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)- Delete per nom. My issues have been adressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge & Redirect to Ottawa Senators: Notable within the team itself, and to many Ottawa fans, also NHL fans in general. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The guidelines for notability within Ice Hockey with respect to 'lines' are not well defined. In the discussion of the deletion of this article, we would be setting a standard outside of a proper process for setting notability guidelines. Notability guidelines for ice hockey claim notability enough for all players who have played in the NHL to be worthy of an article. The members of this group already are notable for their achievements in hockey and have articles. Each player is notable, two won the rookie awards, two were top three overall draft picks, but the combination of these players has created a notable line, beyond what their individual notability entails; and some of that is from playing together. As mentioned in the article, this group led the NHL in playoff scoring, carrying their team to the Finals; one has the highest number of goals over the last two seasons, one is the first European captain in the championship finals. Further, the notability of this line does not depend upon crystal-ball gazing, they are notable already; but it must be said that they are -not likely- to become 'non-notable', as each player is well-skilled, each player is making in excess of $5 million per year, and have signed long-term contracts which will keep the line together. Simply put, within the world of ice hockey, this combination of players is notable. Alaney2k (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The notability of the players on this line has nothing to do with the notability of the line name itself. The line itself is not yet notable, If you talk to most hockey fans outside of Ontario, I am willing to bet that few would have any idea who you are referring to when you ask them who the CASH line is... Merging & Redirecting into the Ottawa article as suggested by Rjd0060 may be the best course for this information. -Pparazorback (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You don't seem to understand. The players themselves are notable no doubt about it. But this is about the name of the line itself. Just because the players who play on the line are notable doesn't make the line itself notable. Is this line more notable than the any other line in the NHL. That is what is failing. --Djsasso (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment further It is actually crystal-ball gazing to assume that the coaching staff in Ottawa will keep this line together. You never know what could happen, whether it be production starts to stall, or a key injury to one or more of these players may force the line to be changed. When this line has been together for a long enough time that the media refers this line as the CASH line pretty much league-wide, then it will be notable. For now, that is not the case. -Pparazorback (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Then you are pre-supposing that this line will not stay together. Again it is unlikely considering the elevation in scoring when these three are together. Alaney2k (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Again this isn't about whether the line will stay together or not. Its about is the term Cash line notable. And it is not because it can't be backed up by non-trivial sources. --Djsasso 16:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Then you are pre-supposing that this line will not stay together. Again it is unlikely considering the elevation in scoring when these three are together. Alaney2k (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment further It is actually crystal-ball gazing to assume that the coaching staff in Ottawa will keep this line together. You never know what could happen, whether it be production starts to stall, or a key injury to one or more of these players may force the line to be changed. When this line has been together for a long enough time that the media refers this line as the CASH line pretty much league-wide, then it will be notable. For now, that is not the case. -Pparazorback (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This line is no more notable than any of the other numerous "named" lines that pop up year after year. We created a list for this sort of thing so that articles would not be created for every named line that someone feels is important. The majority people out there would have no idea who the CASH line is if you asked them. Just because the players on the line are notable does not make the line notable itself. --Djsasso (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would prefer that this settling of whether a line is notable be done through a comparison to a guideline. It really seems inappropriate without a guideline. Please address that issue. Alaney2k (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete - Subject of article does not have notability, let alone irrefutable recognition outside of Ottawa. Flibirigit (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of ice hockey linemates or Ottawa Senators. There are guidleines, Alaney. WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. We can verify the line exists, and that it has been called that. I cannot, however, find multiple, independent, non-trivial sources to establish notability. Its the top line of the Ottawa Senators. I'm not sure how simply having a nickname makes it notable. Resolute 16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I only started working on the article yesterday. It had been a stub for PROD, as it had languished for a couple of years and I suggested 'let me work on it, then take a look at it'. But it went to AfD immediately, within a few hours. That was surprising and a bit disheartening, frankly. Alaney2k 16:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Alaney that really doesn't have anything to do with it. No matter how much you work on it, it will still fail notability guidelines unless you can find non-trivial sources for it, which will not be possible for a named line that is so relatively new. Sometimes you just have to let things go or you can risk bumping up against WP:OWN. --Djsasso 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Sure, I wrote to another ed that consensus will decide, and I accept that. I don't own the article, but I do think the trio is notable and I was willing to work on the article. I was not expecting it to go so swiftly to AfD, after I suggested that I work on it. That almost guarantees that I can't find a sufficient notability for the line, but I'll check the library's copies of The Hockey News, that might be enough? Alaney2k 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Alaney that really doesn't have anything to do with it. No matter how much you work on it, it will still fail notability guidelines unless you can find non-trivial sources for it, which will not be possible for a named line that is so relatively new. Sometimes you just have to let things go or you can risk bumping up against WP:OWN. --Djsasso 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Ottawa Senators, it's important to Senators fans, but pales in comparison to the 'great lines' of the NHL past. GoodDay 17:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I was going to suggest Ottawa Senators/CASH line, and even created it to see if Wikipedia would allow articles under a '/', and it did. Sheesh, doing so broke a rule though. Anyway, since the Sens article is already 60k, what should be done? It seems too much to put in the team article, and where does it go, within the structure? Alaney2k 18:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If 'redirect' is this AfD's choice? you don't put any information in the Senators article (or very little) concerning the 'Cash line'. A redirect simply means, when somebody looks up Cash line it'll take them to the Senators page. Why put all the Cash line articles information into the Senators page? That would defeat the purpose of the redirect. GoodDay 19:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Could you explain further what you mean, by defeating the purpose? Alaney2k 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment In this instance when a redirect is used it means that the information is not notible in and of itself and so the user would be redirected to the most relavent article. It does not mean that the article it is redirected to would have any information on that particular subject. A vote to merge however would mean that some of the information would be transferred to the new article. But a redirect on its own is just a redirect with no transfer of information as the information was deemed not notible enough. So adding information to the Senators article would be defeating the purpose of the Afd as you would just be hiding the information on another page. --Djsasso 19:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Could you explain further what you mean, by defeating the purpose? Alaney2k 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Dj is correct, if the AfD calls for merge into the Ottawa Senators, then 'Cash Line' information can be moved to the Senators page. GoodDay 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If 'redirect' is this AfD's choice? you don't put any information in the Senators article (or very little) concerning the 'Cash line'. A redirect simply means, when somebody looks up Cash line it'll take them to the Senators page. Why put all the Cash line articles information into the Senators page? That would defeat the purpose of the redirect. GoodDay 19:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (the "Comment" was originally Oppose, which was a mistake) I still think we should keep it around. Maybe it is not as notable as the famous lines of the past, but I don't think it has to be. I think we need to work on more of the line articles, especially the Production Line article. Alaney2k 15:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- You've already !voted keep above. It is preferable to tag subsequent remarks as comments rather than additional keep !votes. Also, WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid keep reason. Resolute 15:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I only wanted to indicate that I still oppose, despite my further comments about the possibilities of redirect or merge. And, this is not supposed to be a vote, but a discussion leading to 'consensus'. Alaney2k 17:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment And that is why he called it a !vote. Which means not vote. Its the universally accepted wiki way of calling this a concensus building discussion. And we were aware you still opposed it as you did not strike out your eariler oppose !vote. -Djsasso 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment See, I thought you were not supposed to change your previous edits to this page. Like a talk page, not a !talk page, but rather a !vote page. :-) Alaney2k 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Everybody, please wait until the AfD has concluded. Then go from there, shall we? GoodDay 18:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment See, I thought you were not supposed to change your previous edits to this page. Like a talk page, not a !talk page, but rather a !vote page. :-) Alaney2k 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment And that is why he called it a !vote. Which means not vote. Its the universally accepted wiki way of calling this a concensus building discussion. And we were aware you still opposed it as you did not strike out your eariler oppose !vote. -Djsasso 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I only wanted to indicate that I still oppose, despite my further comments about the possibilities of redirect or merge. And, this is not supposed to be a vote, but a discussion leading to 'consensus'. Alaney2k 17:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- You've already !voted keep above. It is preferable to tag subsequent remarks as comments rather than additional keep !votes. Also, WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid keep reason. Resolute 15:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment about the I like it reference. I went and read that. My comment was certainly not intended that way. I was responding to GoodDay's comments about the trio not being as notable as the famous hockey lines of the past. Alaney2k 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment One thing to be aware of, and I find rather ironic. Is that Alaney2k has now added a source to the article which pretty much proves the arguments against the article because it states that the CASH line is not well known outside of Ottawa which pretty much removes the articles assertion of notability, and if it wasn't up for Afd already would in my opinion make it a speedy candidate due to no assertion of notability. -Djsasso 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Is there a short-cut for twisting my words? I wrote that the 'name' is not well-known, not the line. I included several citations that the name is known to the media and to fans. Alaney2k 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As noted on my talk page, we aren't disputing that the individual players are notible. Its the name CASH line which this article is about that is in dispute. Your quote goes to show that "Cash line" as an entity is not notible which is what this Afd is about. -Djsasso 20:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment as I said on your talk page, that logic would mean that no individual articles should be written about hockey lines. You can cover the topic of naming within a list. I don't think it is particularly notable that someone gave them the name 'production line', rather it is the combination, the trio of players that is notable. That's encyclopedic, that's what's worthy of an article. I can willing debate that the CASH line is not notable enough within some scale yet-to-be-agreed-upon of notability guidelines. But I would argue that the line has reached enough notability as things stand today. I would happily accept consensus on that. The line has made history with the shoot-out, led a playoff-underachieving team to the Finals, had three players in the Top 10 in scoring. The line has been together for more than two seasons, which in this day and age, is a long time. The line has made them into more notable players, not the other way around. Alaney2k 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment But that is what this is all about. Just the fact that the local fans/media gave them a nickname is why it is not notible and why we have put it up for deletion. You yourself now have just admited the name is not notible, but that is what articles of lines are about. The fact that they have been named. Players who have just happened to play on the same line does not make that line any more notible than the rest of the team. All three of these players were extremely notible before they played on the line together, the line as a group is not all the much more notible than any other hockey line. Nowhere else in no other sport on wikipedia are player given articles for a line or unit that they play on. What possibly could have made the line notible was the name, as that distances them from hundreds of other lines throughout history, except that this named line is not notible as hardly anyone has ever heard the name. -Djsasso 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have provided reliable sources that the name is known, in just a few days. It was mentioned in a prominent article in Sports Illustrated. The name was mentioned in several articles from newspapers in several cities, mostly Canadian. I have no access to newspaper searches for other countries, specifically the US. But the name was mentioned also in USA Today, as provided. I can't go out there and interview everyone. As for your notability point, there are not that mainly 'top lines in the league', in the 'top league in the game'. Within hockey, we give names to lines. I can't speak to other sports. Alaney2k 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think what you are missing is that the source has to be non-trivial. In other words the article has to be written about the fact they are called the CASH line. It can't be something just like "The CASH line scored 3 goals tonight." It has to be an outright article about the CASH line and not just an article about something else that mentions the name CASH line. As for top lines, every time a player moves to another line another line is created. This trio hasn't even managed to stay on the same line for an entire season yet as Spezza has been moved to the second line numerous times over the last two years. -Djsasso 20:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why would anyone write about the naming of a line? To paraphrase, by any other name, the Production Line would still score goals. As for Cash, the name is known. The name therefore can be used to title an article about this line, which is or isn't notable. As for line combinations, that is the nature of the game. I am sure that every top line since they went to substitution rules back in 1920 or whatever has had different players for different lengths of time. That's coaching. If we can get off the name thing, and talk about stuff like Spezza off the line, I am perfectly ok with that. That's hockey. But naming, well, that's classification. Alaney2k 20:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think what you are missing is that the source has to be non-trivial. In other words the article has to be written about the fact they are called the CASH line. It can't be something just like "The CASH line scored 3 goals tonight." It has to be an outright article about the CASH line and not just an article about something else that mentions the name CASH line. As for top lines, every time a player moves to another line another line is created. This trio hasn't even managed to stay on the same line for an entire season yet as Spezza has been moved to the second line numerous times over the last two years. -Djsasso 20:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have provided reliable sources that the name is known, in just a few days. It was mentioned in a prominent article in Sports Illustrated. The name was mentioned in several articles from newspapers in several cities, mostly Canadian. I have no access to newspaper searches for other countries, specifically the US. But the name was mentioned also in USA Today, as provided. I can't go out there and interview everyone. As for your notability point, there are not that mainly 'top lines in the league', in the 'top league in the game'. Within hockey, we give names to lines. I can't speak to other sports. Alaney2k 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment But that is what this is all about. Just the fact that the local fans/media gave them a nickname is why it is not notible and why we have put it up for deletion. You yourself now have just admited the name is not notible, but that is what articles of lines are about. The fact that they have been named. Players who have just happened to play on the same line does not make that line any more notible than the rest of the team. All three of these players were extremely notible before they played on the line together, the line as a group is not all the much more notible than any other hockey line. Nowhere else in no other sport on wikipedia are player given articles for a line or unit that they play on. What possibly could have made the line notible was the name, as that distances them from hundreds of other lines throughout history, except that this named line is not notible as hardly anyone has ever heard the name. -Djsasso 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment as I said on your talk page, that logic would mean that no individual articles should be written about hockey lines. You can cover the topic of naming within a list. I don't think it is particularly notable that someone gave them the name 'production line', rather it is the combination, the trio of players that is notable. That's encyclopedic, that's what's worthy of an article. I can willing debate that the CASH line is not notable enough within some scale yet-to-be-agreed-upon of notability guidelines. But I would argue that the line has reached enough notability as things stand today. I would happily accept consensus on that. The line has made history with the shoot-out, led a playoff-underachieving team to the Finals, had three players in the Top 10 in scoring. The line has been together for more than two seasons, which in this day and age, is a long time. The line has made them into more notable players, not the other way around. Alaney2k 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As noted on my talk page, we aren't disputing that the individual players are notible. Its the name CASH line which this article is about that is in dispute. Your quote goes to show that "Cash line" as an entity is not notible which is what this Afd is about. -Djsasso 20:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Is there a short-cut for twisting my words? I wrote that the 'name' is not well-known, not the line. I included several citations that the name is known to the media and to fans. Alaney2k 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment But its the name that this Afd is about. It's not about stuff like Spezza on or off the line. People have written whole books about things like the naming of a line. So an article is definately not out of the question. And that is why this particular line doesn't hold up the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. Other lines like The Kid Line and The Production Line and I believe though I might be wrong that even the Legion of Doom line have had entire books written about the line. And if not entire books, atleast a major section of a book. Without the name as you mentioned its just Spezza-Alfredsson-Heatley. And in that case their acheivements would just be better suited in their own articles with a comment mentioning that they played on the same line with each other. -Djsasso 20:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment But we are talking about a current line. In some sense, we are trying to set a bar for notability in a specific area, even a new area. The encyclopedia has articles about current things, like the players and teams themselves. Do we go or not into having articles about current lines? There might be some value there. If it is a WP:NPOV article about this line, separate from any hype, would that be acceptable then? The article is not WP:SYNTH, is it? (aarggh, now I am using the shortcuts! :-) As for naming, they are generally given almost immediately. Names are discarded if the name is not notable are broken up, also immediately. The CASH line name has 'stuck,' though. Another question, what is the level of recognition of a name that is required? Alaney2k 21:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why don't we wait until the AfD has concluded. GoodDay 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wait for what? These comments are specifically about this AfD. -Djsasso 22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This AfD could quickly turn to a preference for Keep (by the way, when does it close?). GoodDay 22:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Still not sure what you are getting at. But it will close after the 5th. -Djsasso 23:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Oh, in that case - forget I complained. Carry on. GoodDay 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This AfD could quickly turn to a preference for Keep (by the way, when does it close?). GoodDay 22:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wait for what? These comments are specifically about this AfD. -Djsasso 22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why don't we wait until the AfD has concluded. GoodDay 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment But we are talking about a current line. In some sense, we are trying to set a bar for notability in a specific area, even a new area. The encyclopedia has articles about current things, like the players and teams themselves. Do we go or not into having articles about current lines? There might be some value there. If it is a WP:NPOV article about this line, separate from any hype, would that be acceptable then? The article is not WP:SYNTH, is it? (aarggh, now I am using the shortcuts! :-) As for naming, they are generally given almost immediately. Names are discarded if the name is not notable are broken up, also immediately. The CASH line name has 'stuck,' though. Another question, what is the level of recognition of a name that is required? Alaney2k 21:23, 3 December 2007 (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.
