Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Neiszner

Add links
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. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete. In fact, there is at this point little support for outright deletion, some support for redirecting (which is effectively deleting but also acknowledging that the subject is noteworthy for mention somewhere in the encyclopedia), and a thin majority favoring keeping the article on the basis of sources that are meagre but not impermissible for use. I would suggest that those advocating for keeping the article continue searching for sources. BD2412 T 23:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Neiszner

[edit]

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

Chris Neiszner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a hockey player, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for hockey players. The leagues he played in, the American Hockey League and the ECHL, are specifically listed in WP:NHOCKEY as conferring notability only if the player "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer, first-team all-star)" -- but there's no claim being made here that he ever achieved any such thing in either league, and he hasn't been shown to pass WP:GNG either as the article is referenced entirely to content self-published by the teams he has played or worked for rather than any evidence of independent coverage in third-party media sources.
The article has, additionally, spent 18 full months with WP:BLP-violating nonsense like "He is currently an ambulance driver in Alberta. He once smiled, but really didn't like it. Chris also had the pleasure of providing the Rebels staff with water in their mouths." in it until I found and poleaxed it just now, which isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself but does speak to how many responsible editors have actually seen the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without much more and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Versions of the above links that will open through Wikipedia Library: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Local coverage in the home market of the team he played for isn't sufficient in and of itself to give a minor-league hockey player a GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY. We'd have to see nationalizing coverage, not just the Red Deer Advocate alone. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
coverage isn't sufficient ... [for a] GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY – ?? NHOCKEY is an inclusionary criterion, not an exlusionary one (and a broken one at that -- if you meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG; if you do not meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG). The only thing that matters is whether he meets GNG, and national coverage is not necessary for that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as a distinction between "inclusionary" and "exclusionary" SNGs. GNG does not just count up the number of media hits and keep anybody who's surpassed an arbitrary number, without considering the context in which the media hits exist — as I've said more than once, if GNG just concerned itself with the number of sources a person had, and didn't care about whether the context of what the person was getting covered for was actually of any broad or sustained public interest or not, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's former neighbour who once got a blip of media coverage for finding a pig in her front yard. (Hell, if all GNG cared about was the number of media hits that could be found, and didn't measure for whether the context of what those hits existed for passed any notability criteria or not, then I would even be able to claim that I qualified for an article.) So media coverage doesn't just have to hit some arbitrary number of clippings, and also has to verify passage of one or more notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sport-specific sub criteria is just leftover stuff from before WP:NSPORTS2022 that wasn't participation based (all of the participation criteria was removed). None of the individual sport guidelines have been updated with replacement criteria so we're pretty much just left with skeletonized guidelines that offer unhelpful advice like likely to be notable if they've been inducted into the hall of fame. There's isn't even any guidance currently on football, gridiron football, or baseball. In regards to NHOCKEY, the only NHL guidance mentions first-round draft picks, which is obviously too strict given all of the blue links at 2017 NHL entry draft (and there's never been an overabundance of hockey players anyway). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Right now, it looks like Wayne Gretzky fails NHOCKEY. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He does fail NHOCKEY. I suggest an AfD. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV does not exclude local coverage, and makes no mention of national coverage. Flibirigit (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Local coverage isn't excluded from usability, and I never said it was. But local coverage is not necessarily enough to hand a person a GNG-based exemption from normal inclusion criteria all by itself — unelected candidates are not exempted from NPOL just because they can show a handful of local campaign coverage in the local media of the area where they were running without any evidence of broader significance, actors who don't otherwise pass NACTOR's achievement-based criteria are not exempted from them just because they can show a handful of "local aspiring actor gets first bit part in movie" coverage in their hometown media without any evidence of broader significance, high school and junior league athletes are not exempted from the inclusion criteria for their sport just because they can show a handful of hometown local coverage without any evidence of broader significance, local bands are not exempted from having to pass WP:NMUSIC just because they got a few hits of "local band plays local pub" in their local newspaper without any evidence of broader significance, and on and so forth.
If a person is properly established as passing an SNG on an actual inclusion criterion, then we genuinely don't care whether their sourcing is "local" or "national" — but if a person's coverage isn't establishing passage of any specific inclusion criteria, and instead you're trying to argue that they get over GNG purely on the number of media hits that exist in and of itself, then a local vs. national coverage test does come into play, because lots of people can show some evidence of local coverage in contexts that don't pass encyclopedic standards of permanent international significance. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT may apply here. Flibirigit (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the only coverage were a couple of articles from Neiszer's home town of Craik, Saskatchewan stating that he made it to a WHL team, I'd probably agree that he does not meet GNG. But he has much more extensive coverage from Red Deer, Alberta, which is not his home town (or even his home province) plus significant coverage from Las Vegas, Nevada, which is not even his home country. That's not to mention a lot of insignificant coverage in other newspapers in other ciites. So he actually has not only national coverage, but international coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Red Deer Advocate is a perfectly acceptable source for demonstrating significant coverage for notability, which has no "national coverage" requirement, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal provides an additional source of significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment while not really an international outlet, there are at least 6 articles from the Red Deer Advocate here which would count towards notability. However, my problem is that they do not seem to be very in-depth which makes me wonder whether there is enough material to write an interesting article that goes beyond the Hockey stats. --hroest 19:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources seem quite limited and I don't think it passes WP:BASIC. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG with multiple sources of SIGCOV listed above. NSPORT doesn't have any reasonable sport-specific guidance on stuff anymore since WP:NSPORTS2022 so this is all we have to go on. Just following the rules. Can't have it both ways. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer This is due for close or relist today, but I don't see any source review. Could we get a relist to do that properly. My first observation is that 6 of the 7 sources come from the same newspaper, and so these would only count as a single source for purposes of GNG. The links have ot been set up through the Wikipedia library so I will need to do a bit of work to review them, but that is at most one source. The other, the Las Vegas Review, is a report on their return, but is primarily an interview, so the biographical information is not independent, and is primary. I think this needs more work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Source review - Thanks for the relist. I have now looked at the six sources above, and here is my assessment (in conjunction with my earlier comment about the Las Vegas Review source).
    The following are all from the Red Deer Advocate, a local paper for Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. They are mostly from one staff correspondent. One is from an alternate staff correspondent. The page subject is only associated with the Red Deer Rebels. The Red Deer Advocate is owned by Black Press, but coverage of a player on the local team in a local paper is clearly WP:ROUTINE or of questionable independence. To be notable, the player must surely be noticeable beyond the local paper.
  • 1 (Meacham, 2001) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. Question?
  • 2 - Not SIGCOV. Red XN
  • 3 (Meacham, 2005) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. Additionally information appears to be obtained via interview, and aspects of this are primary reporting. Question?
  • 4 (Meacham, 2010) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. Question?
  • 5 (Rode, 2005) This appears to be a write up of an interview, so the biographical information is not independent. Red XN
  • 6 (Meacham, 2003) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. Question?
The six sources count together. While some are excluded, there is SIGCOV here in this local paper about the local team. But can they be used for notability? Certainly not on their own. They provide some useable biographical information, but they do not indicate notability. GNG requires multiple sources in any case. If we had national coverage at this level, we would keep, based on the coverage, but as things stand, if this is all we have, we are not yet at GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in our guidelines suggests that coverage by a "local team in a local newspaper" is of "questionable independence" or necessarily routine. And the Las Vegas article (which is not an interview) is not Red Deer, or even Alberta, or even Canada. So there are multiple sources, and not just national coverage but international coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very much disagree with the source review above. The Review-Journal is an ~800 word story on him that is not solely an interview. Sirfurboy seems to be stating that any story that has any quotes or such is automatically non-independent, but that is clearly incorrect and including quotes from closely related people is a feature of almost all good sports reporting. Review-Journal is SIGCOV source 1. Then we've got an avalanche of coverage from the Advocate. "Questionable independence"? No, the paper is not owned by the team or anything like that. Being local does not mean non-independent! And there is no requirement that a subject receives national coverage. The Review-Journal has SIGCOV and then the Advocate has SIGCOV. That's multiple sources with SIGCOV, and that meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly everything in the Review is indeed from an interview. I missed that 89 words of direct quotation actually come from Glen Gulutzan, his coach, saying:

    Early on he's had some offensive success, but what we can count on him for is the same game every night. That's why he's good for our younger guys. His game doesn't fluctuate every day. It's the same every day.

    "He kills penalties, plays in front of the net on the power play and on 5-on-5 he's defensively responsible. We know every night we can rely on him in tough situations. He's just a well-rounded player, and that's how he has to be to get to the next level.

    Other than that, the only material that is not directly from the subject is that he spent last season in France (signed because of his agent), his offense has improved, he scored 23 points in 26 games, and he is reunited with Justin Taylor. This is primarily an interview with a returning player. Where is he returning to? Las Vegas. And this is the Las Vegas Review. What is not interview is news reporting, city wide but local. Again, if we had any national coverage it would be different, but coverage of who is rejoining a local team is routine, match reporting is primary and interview content is not independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's 260 words of coverage of Neiszner that is not from quotes – that's SIGCOV. There is no requirement that the coverage be non-local. Whether you personally judge it to be "routine" because its of a "returning player" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters, aside from it being reliable and independent (which it is), is whether it is in-depth coverage (SIGCOV), which it is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're discounting "local" coverage and entire sources because they have some quote material (which is standard sports journalism), then there are a decent amount of NHL players that wouldn't even pass GNG. Would an article on a Philadelphia Flyers player in The Philadelphia Inquirer not count since it's "local"? Only All-Star caliber players and those who have played for 10+ years will have national SIGCOV. I'm not going to "die on the hill" (for lack of a better phrase) for this minor leaguer but I would for an NHL player. Here is an example of a Q&A type interview that wouldn't count towards notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Quotes can be valid coverage, especially if they are not from an interview with the subject. Rlendog (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. - see WP:IV. As we want biographical SIGCOV of the player, the quoted information is primary, and cannot be used for SIGCOV. What we can take into account is the question of why the interview happened. Why did a newspaper believe interviewing this subject was important? Does that indicate notability? But that takes us to the occasioning of the sources, and relevant here is that these are coverage of the local team, and this is run of the mill stuff. Look at the 89 words from the coach above: it's just talking about him as a team member. We need something more here. If the subject is notable, someone other than the local paper will have taken note in something other than simple team news reporting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. – correct, which means that the quotes in the article cannot count as coverage of the subject. However, the ~260 words written by the journalist on Neiszner is coverage that counts as SIGCOV. All good sports journalism includes quotes, so you're suggestions that including quotes automatically makes sources primary and unusable would make basically all sports SIGCOV unusable, which is very obviously in error and a ridiculous assertion that I have never before come across in my five years of participation at hundreds of sports AFDs. Once again, whether you personally think this is "local run of the mill stuff" is entirely irrelevant; all that matters is whether there is SIGCOV in reliable sources, which we have here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I make it 171 words and I already dealt with that above. It tells us that he spent last season in France (signed because of his agent), his offense has improved, he scored 23 points in 26 games, and he is reunited with Justin Taylor. The source is primarily an interview in local press about a returning player. It is routine, and the occasion of the source (that he is a returning player) makes that information primary. Biographical information may be secondary, but there is no independent biographical information to speak of. It is almost entirely not independent. And we routinely treat routine local press more cautiously for notability. You are attempting to make this a black and white, any two sources and it's in. That's not what the policy says. What it actually says is this:

    "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.

    Under the accompanying note it adds "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." If we had one national source, I'd accept these take us to multiple sources, but they are simply not enough on their own. Thus, at this stage, my !vote is Delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how you get 171, but it is ~260. Per GNG, a topic is notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It says nothing of "routine local press" being discounted. And I'll add that the Las Vegas Review-Journal is no small-town paper, but a large one, the largest in the state of Nevada. That the source is about a "returning player" is irrelevant; once again, the only thing that matters is if there's SIGCOV. It is not primary, and that there's some quotes in the article does not make it so, for quotes are a feature of all sports journalism. The suggestion that quotes automatically make a source unusable is ridiculous and would result in the deletion of the vast majority of all sports articles. National coverage is not required... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And let's not forget that IV is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Rlendog (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But not wrong. The policy it is based on is found in WP:PRIMARY. See note d. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But the relevant issue of whether quotes within a secondary source count as primary is not in WP:PRIMARY. Rlendog (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like wikilawyering around the margins. Look, if you are writing a biography, everything the subject of the biography says about themself is a primary source and not independent of the subject, by definition. That is not just Wikipedia saying so. This is true everywhere, and should be self evident. It is also the policy (as I have shown) and the guidance (as I have shown). What you can seek to do with interviews is demonstrate that the fact of the interview makes a case for notability. That is, the occasion of an interview should be considered. It is not a mechanistic thing, but clearly if someone is being interviewed by a variety of different news outlets, there will be a reason why they are being interviewed. I've argued, in the past, that a subject was likely to be notable based on the range and duration of interview material. But that argument is quite apart from the GNG one. For GNG, interviews are neither independent nor secondary. There is no wiggle room there. They are not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: it's not per definition that interview material is primary; see Wikipedia:Interviews#Primary or secondary?. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which says The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. I already quoted it. What an interviewee says about themself is primary. Please note that this is exactly what I said. We are not talking about an interviewee talking about the right way to varnish yachts for our yacht varnishing page. We are talking about interviewees who are talking about themselves, for the question of what to put in their biographical articles, as I made very clear. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the note as your general advice What you can seek to do with interviews is demonstrate that the fact of the interview makes a case for notability. can be read as the content of an interview is always primary. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that changes the fact that the article written by an independent journalist who decided to include the quote (or used information from an interview in their article) is secondary. None of what you have "shown" changes that. And the statement that you quoted is solely in the essay WP:IV, not in any of our guidance or policy. Rlendog (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And your claim that "everything the subject of the biography says about themself is a primary source and not independent of the subject, by definition." But some of the quotes you want to exclude from the Las Vegas article are from the subject's coach, not from the subject. But in any case, the journalist who chose to include those quotes in their article is not the subject and not even related to the subject so it should be self-evident that the article is secondary, even if WP:IV was a guideline or policy.Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just repeating what has been discussed above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Direct quotes are always primary, and when they come from someone affiliated with the subject they are not independent either. The only interview content that can contribute to GNG is secondary commentary by the interviewer; neither quotes nor "the fact the newspaper decided to interview them" counts as independent secondary SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As SIGCOV of the subject is provided. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an article from the Las Vegas Sun about Neiszner. Not the most enlightening, and it does contain some quotes from the subject, but another independent, reliable source that felt this subject was worthy of an article. Rlendog (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd closed as keep, but have volunteered to relist per User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Neiszner May weigh in more later when I'm back online.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Wranglers page where he is mentioned. Per NOPAGE, we do not have to have an article just because coverage exists, and I think the very local-interest-news, interview-based slant of the current sourcing makes it hard to write a truly encyclopedic article on the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could pretty much make that sort of argument to get rid of any topic I want. "Yeah there's SIGCOV to meet GNG, but I don't like this subject and therefore I declare it to be unencyclopedic and it should be deleted per NOPAGE". There's no requirement that sources be non-local and it isn't "very local-interest-news" either, as e.g. the Review-Journal is the number one paper in Nevada. I don't understand a redirect to the Wranglers either, as they weren't even the top team he played for. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Red Deer Advocate even hyper local? According to Media in Alberta, it's the No. 6 paper in the province. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And if the Review-Journal is not the number one paper in Nevada then the Las Vegas Sun is. And both have carried articles about Neiszner. Rlendog (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Six articles in the Red Deer Advocate (circulation 5,579) about a Red Deer Rebels player/coach are surely local-interest news. An interview in the Las Vegas Review-Journal about a Las Vegas Wranglers player is also still local-interest news. There can be significant coverage that is nevertheless not particularly encyclopedic enough for a standalone. This is more in line with PAGs than an editor insisting brief local blurbs are SIGCOV for someone who meets their personal standards for notability but are not SIGCOV for random other subjects (this isn't a reference to you specifically). JoelleJay (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No in 2010, it was circulation 83,987 per the Media in Alberta page linked above. We can't use the current figures. Physical newspapers are pretty much dead. They were already dead by 2010 too. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources provided are mere "brief local blurbs". Some of them are to a degree local, but being local does not prevent them from meeting GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Neiszner&oldid=1291976449"