Talk:List of ice hockey players who died during their careers

Re-doing list

I realize this list is probably based on List of people who died young, but would anyone be opposed to me sorting this list by date, and then making the age column sortable and the rest unsortable? This way it would be listed from earliest to latest and if the reader wants to see the list by age, they can sort it that way. Bsroiaadn^Talk 20:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, I always prefer sortable lists. But in my opinion name should also be sortable, maybe even giving nationality an own column and make it sortable. --Krm500 22:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll make "name" sortable and add a "nationality" column and make that sortable, as well. Should be done in a couple days, if not sooner. Bsroiaadn^Talk 22:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think there might be a problem with sorting nationality since the article use two different flags for Canada. Maybe it's best keeping it like it is now with the flag in the name column. --Krm500 23:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't even though of that. Well, I messed around with it a bit and found that {{flag}} is sortable....only problem is it displays the name of the country next to it which can waste a lot of space on the screen at times. Though I suppose it'd be worth it to give up some extra pixels-worth of space to make it sortable. In any case, I asked WikiProject Flag Template about it. Bsroiaadn^Talk 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Also be sure to look at Template:sortname to make the names sortable by last name instead of first name. Andrwsc 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that as well. Bsroiaadn^Talk 03:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason for the current table being divided in sections? Readability? Compatibility with slow computers? Or is it just a leftover from the longer list (that also included post-career early deaths)? If not, I see no problem merging them to a single table. --Bamsefar75 11:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I finished it. Anything that anyone doesn't like or think should be re-done? I was also thinking about making the "cause of death" column sortable, and I know how I could do it, but I wasn't sure if it would be worth it. For example, all the cancer deaths would get grouped together, the automobile accidents together, etc. Bsroiaadn^Talk 21:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot about having to switch what's wikilinked and what's not now, due to the new order of things. I'll do it tomorrow. Bsroiaadn^Talk 01:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering on any requirements for level of hockey played to be included on this list? I noticed Mike Fogolin is not on it. He died during the summer when he was a member of the Prince George Cougars. Leafschik1967 (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Additions

• I added several junior hockey players to the list. I figured they should be on there too, if properly referenced, and I found news sources for all 6 that I added - Four Broncos, Michael Fogolin, and Graham Christie (who died as a result on an on-ice incident. Leafschik1967 (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

non notable players

Ho-chi Seung is not notable enough to have mention in this article. While it is sad that he died, death does not make notable. He was never drafted into the NHL or any major professional league, nor did he ever play in any professional league. the reference given reads more like a blog than a source. Being mentioned in the news does not make notable. If that were true, I would have my own wikipedia article, which i don't and won't.

Michael Fogolin, while the son and grandson of notable people, is not notable himself. He was not a top prospect, was never drafted, and never played professinally. Yes, i know he was only 17 years old, but i reiterate, he wasn't a top prospect, therefore doesn't meet notability on wikipedia. His career was one season (42 games) in the WHL. As meantioned with Hochi seung, being mentioned in the news media alone doesn't make notable.[1] [2]

While Darcy Robinson was in fact drafted, being drafted doesn't make a player notable, especially in the 8th round. Darcy was a career minor leaguer and never made the jump to a major professional team. He does not meet the requirements of notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial and in most cases, dying does not create notability. [3]

there are other players on this list that probably shouldn't be here either, but these are three players that jump out and scream not notable. Masterhatch (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys have been a great help. I had always assumed that players (or people for that matter) in a list had to meet the same notability level as players (people) who have their own article. There seems to be some grey areas with this list, though. Masterhatch (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Müller

Robert Müller passed away yesterday. Does he qualify for inclusion? Seems he played for as long as possible, but not in 2009. Also the Kölner Haie newspage mentions adding him to the (German) Hall of Fame before his death. Either way I havent got the time to do it right now, so be my guest. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

Canada Hky, you asked: "What standards are you using for his removal? There are similar players on the list, whose highest level of play was major junior." Answer: I believe that the only players who did not play higher than major junior on the list are players whose death was either directly or indirectly related to playing hockey. (Either a death due to an on-ice incident or when traveling with the team.) In these cases the circumstances of the deaths themselves make the deaths more noteworthy by being related to the fact that they were hockey players and thus deserving inclusion. But otherwise the only players who are included on the list either played professionally, were significant professional draft picks, played for a national team, or won some significant individual award. Not all of these people are notable enough to merit a dedicated article to themselves, but these seem reasonable criteria to decide inclusion here. If we allow anyone who died while still an active player, then there would be no reason not to include 7-year-olds who happen to play minor hockey when dying in a way unrelated to playing hockey or elderly people who were still playing beer league hockey when they died. 99.192.83.188 (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My officially unofficial criteria for this list has been playing in a notable league at the time of their death (or at the time they had to leave said league due to injury / illness that resulted in their death). In the specific case of Vinnie Scott, CIS sports is a notable level. It draws a line in the sand, and leaves out the egregious examples that don't belong such as the ones you brought up. I don't think this criteria is overly broad, but welcome discussion on the point. I think 'league at the time of death' is a clearer standard than 'significant professional draft pick' - which often only becomes 'significant' after they are dead due to media coverage. Canada Hky (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think using notability of league sets the bar too low and sets it in the wrong place. First, about it being too low. If we are to go by the List of ice hockey leagues to determine notability of league, you will see it includes an awful lot of low level amateur leagues. It includes the Interscholastic Hockey League, a league for High School students in southeast Texas that "operates within a non-traditional hockey market" and since its founding in 1998 "has remained stagnant" and Hockey North America, a league founded for "a group of adults who had never really skated before" as a league "for the adult beginner". These seem like pretty egregious examples to me.

As for setting the bar in the wrong place, the list is supposed to be about players who died, not leagues who had players die. So, for example, a marginal player who just barely made a Junior A team and almost never played and died in his first year of Junior A is not as noteworthy as a star player in his final year of Junior A who has been drafted by the NHL. The criteria of individual achievements (like being drafted, playing on a national team, or winning a major individual award) separates the more significant people from the less significant ones. Using league as the criterion does not. 99.192.95.110 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That list isn't really the guideline I would use for notability of a league, for the same reason we are having a discussion here - items are included on a list that aren't necessarily notable elsewhere (there are some leagues on that page that I wouldn't think merit an article, but that's another discussion). I prefer to use league as the cutoff, because it isn't open to personal interpretation. If needed, a list of acceptable leagues could be established (rule of thumb for me - Jr A or higher (which includes university or college hockey in NA, I don't judge entries from other countries, because I am not familiar enough with them). 'Significant' is very open to personal interpretation, and it will also trend very heavily towards recent-ism, because every young hockey player who dies gets extensive news coverage. Is a fifth round draft pick who never plays professional 'significant', or does he become 'significant' because of the heavy news coverage he received after he died young? Scott was captain and leading scorer for Brock University's men's hockey team, which seems significant to me, after a four-year OHL career. Canada Hky (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read the two comments below, and it sounds like we are in general agreement. But I did want to address a comment above, Canada Hky. You said, "That list isn't really the guideline I would use for notability of a league...." It's not the list so much I was using as the fact that the leagues I mentioned in particular (among others on the list) have their own Wikipedia pages, and thus meet the formal definition Wikipedia has for "notability". You can say that they are not notable in your mind, but given that they have their own pages it is hard to know just where the line should be for league notability. The issue of possible subjectivity of line-drawing that you worry about with players would just re-introduce itself in trying to draw lines between notable and non-notable leagues. Anyway, with DJSasso and Ottawa4ever, I agree that the line for significance should be a bit higher. 99.192.95.110 (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The way I recall it from past similar discussions is that the players have either been notable enough to have their own article. ie they pass WP:GNG for something other than just their death or they have had a notable award named in honour of them. -DJSasso (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Its usually pretty standard even in non sports articles (i imagine can be applied here) that the person meets gng to be included in a list of otherwise we have a trivia issue. Agreed with DJasso on this one Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the previous discussion, as I recall it (I pointed it out to another IP who was removing players): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive24#List_of_ice_hockey_players_who_died_during_their_playing_career This is kind of the passage that didn't seem to meet with any disagreements: "The nice thing about lists is that they can incorporate otherwise non-notable individuals" Canada Hky (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I was that other "IP" you are referring to. Secondly, referring to me as "another IP" rather than as an editor is insulting. How about trying "I pointed it out to an editor who was removing players". It's not as dismissive as calling me just "another IP". I'm a person, not an Internet protocol. And not all editors who are not logged in are alike. Thirdly, at that time I was not "removing players" (plural), it was just one player I removed - the same one player we are discussing now and who two other editors have now posted here support for removing. Fourthly, my reply to you at that time was this: "The passage you quote there mentions people who were draft picks. Vince Scott was not drafted. It also mentions people whose deaths were notable. The Swift Current four died in an accident related to team activity. Other people on the list who are non-notable died on the ice, and so merit inclusion. Vince Scott's death was not notably related to his being a hockey player as these others were. So I still don't see that he is significant enough to be on the list." That's still true. In the discussion you linked to Djsasso defended listing someone who died on the ice and and Resolute defended listing someone who was a Russian Olympian, the Swift Current four, and a drafted player for whom a major OHL trophy was named. These are the "otherwise non-notable" players that were being endorsed for inclusion. DJSasso and Ottawa4ever have not endorsed anything more broad than that here either. As sad as his death is, Vince Scott does not rise to the same level. 99.192.76.58 (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't intended as an insult, merely an identifier, as I had no way of knowing we had this discussion before. Why not mention that rather than just jumping into the discussion anew? Canada Hky (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• While I think this is something of a BS list in the first place, it'd sure help if it was actually accurate. I just struck Nathan Marsters from the list, for instance, because he'd retired the year BEFORE his death. I'm about to do the same for Hobey Baker, whose last season in organized hockey was over a year before he enlisted in the military.  Ravenswing  03:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"...it'd sure help if it was actually accurate." I'm SHOCKED to learn that there is a Wikipedia article that is less than 100% accurate. Has this ever happened before? But seriously... removing Marsters seems reasonable enough, since he did retire a year before he died. But I think Baker should stay on the list. He was only 26 when he died and only stopped playing hockey because he was fighting in WWI. Many athletes like him fought in WWI or WWII and then returned to resume their athletic careers. So had he not been killed he almost certainly would have played again. His playing career was not over. He did not ever retire as Marsters did, anyway. So I think he should stay on the list. 99.192.89.181 (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Baker's last season was over a year before his enlistment, and it isn't as if players of that day submitted retirement papers, even if a quasi-informal amateur senior league had any such system. Whether he might have unretired had he not been killed is completely speculative and not grounds for debate.  Ravenswing  06:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong about Baker. One would get the impression that his last season was the 1915-16 season by looking at his Wikipedia page, but that page is not accurate. According to the book Hobey Baker, American Legend by Emil R. Salvini (2005) Baker was still playing for the St. Nick's in November 1916 (p.85). Salvini says that Baker played his last game for the St. Nick's in February 1917 (p.78). But Baker had not quit hockey even then. He played what would be his last hockey game on March 25, 1917 at the Winter Garden at Exposition Hall in Pittsburgh playing for an All-Star team from Philadelphia. The US joined WWI just 12 days later. Baker then joined the military and in August 1917 he sailed for Europe to join the fighting. He was an active player through the 1916-1917 season and played right up until he joined the Army. He should be on the list. 99.192.86.126 (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Title

As none of the people listed played ice hockey after they died, the title is a bit daft! How about "List of people who died whilst on an active roster of a major ice hockey team" (noting the situation about people who went to war)? 207.218.21.5 (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)