Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Leggio
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. --Coredesat 00:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] David Leggio
Non-notable collegiate ice hockey player. Has yet to advance to a professional league (see hockeydb entry) and has not been drafted by a National Hockey League team Skudrafan1 23:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Fails WP:BIO guidelines for notability in this sport. Andrwsc 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Skudrafan1 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Canuck85 07:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -- JD554 07:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:HOCKEY guidelines for notability Pparazorback 08:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No notability yet. Can be readded later if he finds some. --Djsasso 14:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. WP:BIO allows for a player who has played at the highest level of amateur sports. This person played in Division 1 NCAA hockey. It doesn't get much higher than that in an amateur sport. WP:HOCKEY is a project and not a guideline or policy for the entire Wikipedia project. Opinions of participants are important but we shouldn't start deleting based on a single project. The real problem is a lack of sources to underpin a claim of notability. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 16:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Except that amateur sport only comes into play in sports where there is a lack of a professional level. Not to mention the highest amateur level would be the World Championships or the Olympics. There is also debate in the hockey community over whether Division 1 is even as good as the other levels of junior hockey. In many circles its considered a step down, and that players only go there that can't go elsewhere. Now obviously this is POV but it goes to show highest level is questionable. --Djsasso 16:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment We really agree that this particular article should be canned, our reasons are different but the outcome the same. But I do wonder about your statement that "amateur sport only comes into play in sports where there is a lack of professional level. Could you point me to that policy/guideline? And what sport is there that has no professional level of some sort? JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll
- Comment "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." The equivalent standing being the highest level of amateur competition, swimming being the perfect example as there is no professional swimming circuit. Atleast that I am aware of. Could be some renegades somewhere I suppose. ;) Heck the majority of olympic sports have no professional version. --Djsasso 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment WP:BIO contains two comments, and again, this is a guideline, not a policy. Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them). My concern is that a sweeping interpretation that only non-league sports are concerned has serious implications for some athletes who play football, baseball and basketball (to name a few) in the college ranks. You are correct about the Olympic Sports that are not played professionally - I should have thought longer. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll —Preceding comment was added at 22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment But how notable are players who could not make it past the amateur level? I mean honestly there are very low level professional leagues in most sports that they could compete in which would then be ok. But if they weren't even good enough for those leagues then really, how notable are they? Personally I prefer the Notability Standards for hockey players because they are more spelled out. But from what I understand WP:BIO is vague on purpose so exceptions can be made. --Djsasso 23:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment WP:BIO contains two comments, and again, this is a guideline, not a policy. Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them). My concern is that a sweeping interpretation that only non-league sports are concerned has serious implications for some athletes who play football, baseball and basketball (to name a few) in the college ranks. You are correct about the Olympic Sports that are not played professionally - I should have thought longer. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll —Preceding comment was added at 22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." The equivalent standing being the highest level of amateur competition, swimming being the perfect example as there is no professional swimming circuit. Atleast that I am aware of. Could be some renegades somewhere I suppose. ;) Heck the majority of olympic sports have no professional version. --Djsasso 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment We really agree that this particular article should be canned, our reasons are different but the outcome the same. But I do wonder about your statement that "amateur sport only comes into play in sports where there is a lack of professional level. Could you point me to that policy/guideline? And what sport is there that has no professional level of some sort? JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll
- Comment Except that amateur sport only comes into play in sports where there is a lack of a professional level. Not to mention the highest amateur level would be the World Championships or the Olympics. There is also debate in the hockey community over whether Division 1 is even as good as the other levels of junior hockey. In many circles its considered a step down, and that players only go there that can't go elsewhere. Now obviously this is POV but it goes to show highest level is questionable. --Djsasso 16:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete because it is un-sourced. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll —Preceding comment was added at 20:51, 29 October 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.
