This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles
It only took me about five minutes' searching on Google to find two additional examples of the use of this phrase in reporting on hockey matches. I've added those to the "external links" section, and for this reason I'm removing the prod tag. --Tkynerd (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, shouldn't be deleted at all. The term was ablaze during the 2002 Winter Olympics Sweden vs. Canada, where the torpedo passes of Lidstrom and company threw off the Canadian team (see Sports Illustrated for example) Natural hat trick (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the biggest issue is that this isn't usually what is called a torpedo pass. What is usually known as a torpedo pass is a short fast pass, which is why its called a torpedo pass. Its a lightning fast pass like a torpedo. But for the sake of arguement assuming it is correct, you obviously didn't read the link I put in as well. Avoid articles on Neologisms. Here I will quote "The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate." -Djsasso (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there's something that is "usually...called a torpedo pass," then the term isn't a neologism ("usually called" implies a reasonably well-established usage), and you should document your assertion as to what a torpedo pass really is and revise the article accordingly. --Tkynerd (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities" Either way it still a Neologism whichever meaning it has. In order to source it you would need articles ABOUT the term, not just using the term as is mentioned on that page. -Djsasso (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but all you have is a bare assertion that this is a neologism. You need to document that fact. --Tkynerd (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually burden on proof is on the article creator to prove that it is not one. -Djsasso (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the burden of proof is on the person proposing deletion. --Tkynerd (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, all things must be referenced. His is currently unreferenced in terms of needing an article about the term not using the term. " To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" to quote the standard. -Djsasso (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
