Talk:Tim Erixon

Tim Erixon only 1st round pick since the NHL lock-out to refuse to sign with the team that drafted him.

I attempted to add that fact and it was deleted. I have no idea why? Can someone please explain why it was removed and if there is another 1st round draft pick since 2004-5 who refused to sign with his team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.81.140 (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have a source for the claim, feel free to re-add it. I reverted your additions based on the speculation that Erixon's father was involved in his trade to the Rangers. Wikipedia doesn't deal in such speculation, especially on a biogrpahical article. Regards, Resolute 13:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

_________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.81.140 (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Ok, that is fine on the delete of Erixon's father influencing Tim's refusal to sign in Calgary but it seemed reasonable considering the Rangers are the only team his father Jan ever played for.

But the part about Tim Erixon being the only 1st round pick since the lock-out to refuse to sign with the team that drafted him is a fact. Look up the 1st round draft picks yourself if you don't believe me. If you have a counter example - John Doe drafted in the first round in 2008 by San Jose refused to sign with them, then provide it. It is no small matter to have a first round pick refuse to sign with the team that drafts you. Perhaps you will recall Eric Lindros. There is also not a whole ton to go through since we are only 6 years from the lock-out.

You can verify this fact yourself by looking up the 1st round picks and if they signed with the teams or not. I do not contribute to Wiki regularly or at all really but this is a significant and notable fact that is not mentioned in the article and just because no one in the mainstream media made the effort to go through the 1st round picks and if they signed with their team or not does not make it any less of a fact or any less verifiable. It is just you that has to do the verification.

Since you are the gatekeeper of Wiki info here I think you have an obligation to go through the 1st round draft picks since 2004-2005 to see if any of them did not sign with the club that drafted them and add my statement back in.

That is all I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.81.140 (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really a gatekeeper, per se, but Wikipedia's policies expect sources for statements likely to be challenged. I probably wouldn't revert myself if you were to re-add that statement, but someone else might. Not because you are wrong (to the best of my knowledge, you aren't), but it is hard to verify that claim given there have been 210 first round picks since the lockout without a reliable source that has commented on it. Regards, Resolute 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to source this other than to do the same thing I did when he was traded which was to spend the few hours plus going through all the 1st overall picks since the lock-out to see if they had all signed entry level contracts, which they all had. I'll go through it again to double check. Maybe I will post the contract sign dates or something here and the link confirming it but it does seem a little paradoxical that I did the work to confirm the information and can't post it on wiki because no one else did the work and put it on the internet for me to link to. Kind of a Catch 22 - Anyway I am not a writer contributor to Wiki but I do donate dollars to them when I can.

I'll see what I can do to find something on the internet about his. Maybe I can e-mail a hockey organization or the NHL and get a response from them and put it on a web-site or blog or something...

Very few blogs are considered reliable sources, so that wouldn't work either. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but yes, it is a bit of a catch-22. Wikipedia aims to be a tertiary source, so our material should be coming primarily from secondary sources. Unfortunately, that does mean that we can't use our own research, since the expectation is that everything we cover has already been published elsewhere. So I would say it isn't all that useful for you to spend the time checking those 210 picks again. I trust your research, but can't really use it. Resolute 19:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)