Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Beikirch

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 consensus here is that NHOCKEY and GNG are not met. Discussions about changing notability guidelines should take place elsewhere Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Beikirch

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Was a prod that was removed saying NHOCKEY didn't override GNG. That is true, however, looking at the subject all the sources on the page except one are not independent or are passing mentions. A search of google has not provided any other sources so the subject fails WP:GNG for lack of sources in addition to failing WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for hockey coaches.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I proposed it for deletion with the understanding that it failed both GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. I apologize if it came across as if I assumed N:HOCKEY superseded GNG. Although there is one in-depth article on her written by the now-GM of the Toronto Six, she still doesn't meet GNG. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merged to her Everipedia page. Thanks, it needed an update before Google index. Hmlarson (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She played on a championship team at the highest level of women's professional ice hockey in the US. Her name is inscribed on the championship cup. This, along with the article on her, should make her notable. PMCH2 (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- PMCH2, she doesn't pass WP:NHOCKEY so the first part of your comment is void. Arguments for keep will have to be based on references. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability on Wikipedia requires multiple in depth sources to be met in order to meet the WP:GNG, this usually translates to a minimum of three. Unfortunately she falls short of that. As much as I would like women's hockey to be covered more in the media, and believe me I do, it just isn't. A good example is the professional team in Boston (a hockey/sports crazy town) won the championship and the local paper didn't even have a single article on the local team winning the league championship. That pretty much sums up the state of professional women's hockey. The top level of women's hockey is still amateur where Olympic players still get fairly decent coverage relatively speaking. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m ambivalent about the deletion of this particular bio but I think the discussion here and recent discussions on the Women's ice hockey task force talk page demonstrate that there’s a schism regarding how women’s ice hockey is regulated on Wikipedia. It would be best for us to be address these differences in perspective before the situation deteriorates.
First, the suggestion that there is no coverage of women’s ice hockey in North America appears to be several years out of date and is easily disproven with a quick google (the name of the team you were referencing may be the “Boston Pride” and the Boston Globe wrote about the Pride and the 2020 NWHL playoffs, as did many other news agencies). Women’s ice hockey has turned a corner in North America, particularly since the NWHL began streaming on Twitch in 2019, and the league’s expansion to Toronto has only ramped up interest. At a certain point, removing articles about women’s ice hockey players for not being notable is a self-fulfilling prophecy; the information gleaned from Wikipedia bios is used by news organizations to determine who and what to write about. We can’t expect every journalist to be familiar with the subject and the dearth of information about women’s ice hockey on Wikipedia may be actively limiting the amount of journalistic coverage it recieves.
Second, there appears to be a total disregard for women’s ice hockey occurring outside of North America, which has remarkably good coverage in several countries. Most notable is the coverage of the SDHL in Sweden, which is quite good and articles regularly appear in the Aftonbladet, Dalarnas Tidningar publications, and the Göteborgs-Posten, among others. The SDHL also holds the distinction of having the most internationally-varied rosters, with players joining from the top leagues around the world, including the NCAA, Naisten Liiga, ZhHL, DFEL, SWHL A, etc. The league’s coverage must be close to that of several of the leagues listed in the third tier of NHOCKEY (looking at you Beneliga and Belarusian Extraleague).
As an aside, several of the top women’s leagues (NWHL, ZhHL, SDHL, etc.) are semi-professional, not amateur. Referring to these leagues as amateur is both semantically flawed and implies a lack of respect that I am sure was not intended.
I hope that, through further discussion, we will be able to find common ground and better understanding. –Spitzmauskc (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I too would like to encourage writers to write more about women's hockey being that I am a hockey fan and more hockey is always good. Wikipedia actively says it is not here to give exposure to something/someone we feel should be getting it that isn't per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Our job here is to record what media/sources are already reporting on. Not what they should be reporting on. And as a side note, I never said no coverage, I said there wasn't enough coverage. As for semi-professional vs amateur, not sure where anyone mentioned that. But I would note, in North America anyway semi-professional is generally considered more amateur than professional, its why we usually use the term "fully professional" on Wikipedia for some of the sports criteria. For example the Canadian Hockey League gives a stipend to its players so to the NCAA it is considered semi-professional, but you would be hard pressed to find anyone outside of the administrators of the NCAA call it anything but amateur. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Boston and read the Boston Globe. The suggestion that the Globe doesn't cover women's hockey is completely inaccurate. Boston is a major market with FIVE other major professional teams, and it STILL has a professional women's ice hockey team which receives some coverage. More importantly, the college game IS extensively covered in the Globe. [1] [2] [3] As is the Women's Beanpot, including the most recent 2020 game. [4]. Here is a recent article about Meghan Duggan. [5]. Here is an article on the pay gap between men and women's pro players. [6]. Here are Globe article on Women's Olympics [7] [8] [9] [10][11] EVERY 2018 Olympic game that the US women's team played was covered by the GLOBE!!! -— Preceding unsigned comment added by PMCH2 (talk • contribs)

I didn't say that Boston never covered women's hockey. I mentioned a specific event that they didn't cover. Winning the league championship. Not covering what would in any other sport be considered the most newsworthy event in a sport goes a long way to showing how under the radar and not notable to the media something is. I also mentioned Olympic coverage was good, so not sure what you are trying to show me by mentioning the Olympic coverage. It is specifically professional coverage that is lacking in regards to articles about specific players as opposed to leagues or routine game coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very clear delete as she fails to pass WP:GNG. To the activists now writing in this, routine sports repotting is not enough to satisfy the GNG and articles must be about the subject of the review. This is not a place to right your perceived wrongs with the world. Deadman137 (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am arguing that the notability standard for professional athletes could be considered to apply for this particular athlete. The Notability (sports) page says: "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." She has played for a championship team at the highest professional level in the US. I am aware that others may not consider the NWHL to confer notability and it is not currently included in WP:NHOCKEY. I am suggesting that this be re-considered. It is relevant to the discussion. PMCH2 (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get this through your head, a deletion discussion is not the place for this. Also, given that your argument against deletion is rooted in bad faith against the ice hockey WikiProject and the rest of it is debarred by WP:NOT, there is no point in engaging with you any further. Deadman137 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is the general criteria for sports that don't have a section below it on that page. Because hockey has a more specific section below hockey players follow it. There was actually a discussion recently on that section reaffirming that was how it works. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She doesn't meet the existing criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. More importantly, my search didn't find the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Routine sports coverage is not enough and this is the wrong forum to argue about changing an existing SNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2020 (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.