Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.J. Franklin


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

C.J. Franklin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Meets the criteria for #4: "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league, in a major junior league, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements)"WpgJets4Life (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , he was on the WCHA all-rookie team, which does not satisfy criteria #4.Joeykai (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Franklyn was also an all-star for the United States Hockey League.WpgJets4Life (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , look at WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. The USHL does not satisfy criteria #4.Joeykai (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 02:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    05:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    05:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if he meets it or otherwise achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And this is precisely why Wikipedia is dying. Well intended novice editors come to try and improve Wikipedia on their own time as volunteers, only to have their articles deleted due to some minor technicality.  If you look at the unregistered user, who brought this article up for deletion, you will find they don't exactly have a stellar track record in editing articles.  Three months ago, I was actually stunned to find out that when looking on information on Chicago Blackhawks Draft Picks, that the article was last updated in 2011.  When you consider that Chicago had just won the Stanley Cup, and are massively popular in a metro area with nine million people, and nobody has the time to bring the article up to date, that in itself is an indication Wikipedia is dying.
 * Then again, if you really browse many of the article on Wikipedia, the same scenario will be played again and again. There are tens of thousands of articles that are now irrelevant, due to being outdated with no updates being done in years.  There are simply not enough editors and administrators to correct the information.  I'm not saying the administrators are not doing their job, as I am sure the vast majority are professional and try their hardest to uphold Wikipedia's standards.  However, there is something fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia's structure, when the powers that be are more concerned with deleting an article by a well-meaning novice Wikipedia editor based on a technicality, than cleaning up some outdated, yet popular article of greater interest to the community.
 * I've given up. I'm just one of thousands of potential editors who have realized that creating Wikipedia articles, or taking valuable time to correct them is not worth it in the end, as the whole structure of Wikipedia has cracks in it's foundation.  I can substantiate these allegations with over 20 articles from various mainstream news articles, but I have a feeling my complains would just fall on deaf ears.  Wikipedia has been in decline since 2008, according to every news source out there, and it looks like it is sadly going to be completely irrelevant in a couple of years.  I've just reached this sad conclusion that tens of thousands of others before me have found out in years prior.
 * RIP Wikipedia. A great concept that was ruined by politics.WpgJets4Life (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't really a technicality. It is the #1 most important thing about Wikipedia. A topic must be notable. -DJSasso (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Djsasso.

To be fair, you could save this player's page in your sandbox and wait until he becomes notable and then re-create the article at that time. Deadman137 (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. As far as WpgJets4Life's comments go, I'm afraid I've heard the "Wikipedia's gone to the dogs because the guidelines don't allow me to write an article about an obscure nobody" argument too often to be much moved by it. Granted, I started on Wikipedia over ten years ago, back when we had much stricter standards in mind -- there were questions, in those days, as to whether players with enough stature to have appeared in NHL All-Star Games were notable enough for articles.  But allow me to turn your complaint around, because you don't seem to have thought it through: so you think we ought to be turning our attention to improving existing articles instead of worrying about new ones?  I quite agree. What's stopping you?  Why are you using your time to create articles about people who plainly don't meet the guidelines, instead of improving existing articles you believe are deficient?  I know I'd be happy if I didn't have to pay attention to AfD any more, and could devote that time to article improvement.    Ravenswing   03:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have better things to do. However, continue with your condescending attitude towards new editors. You must be proud of yourself.  WpgJets4Life (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine that you truly believe claiming to be too good to do the work you want other editors to perform in your stead is a persuasive argument.   Ravenswing   09:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.