Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Thomas (ice hockey)


 * 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   keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Christian Thomas (ice hockey)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable hockey player. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect or keep - The article appropriately redirected to another article which discussed the subject (with appropriate sources) before the nominator expanded the redirect into an inappropriate standalone article. If the subject is not notable, that redirect should be restored.  However, given full length articles about the subject in the Toronto Star, New York Post and Newsday, and a short article in the Vancouver Sun, the subject may well be notable enough to keep. Rlendog (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article, with multiple substantive sources. That, along with his achievement of being part of the first father-son combination to score 50 goals in the OHL, should be enough to keep, but if not, restoring the redirect is more appropriate than deletion. Rlendog (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect with a possible lean towards keep. The nominator them self created the article which was a redirect that was already in place and then nominated it for deletion. If they nominator didn't think it should be an article not sure why they changed it to one. If they didn't think it should be a redirect then they should have put it up at redirects for discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —DJSasso (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Doesn't meet NHOCKEY on his own, but has received significant coverage in a variety of secondary sources Toronto Star, NHL.com, Hockey News Canada Hky (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this junior hockey player. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N. A REDLINE is much better than a redirect for young sports persons who might later become notable. Auseplot (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you say that "sources provided do not provide significant coverage" when the article itself includes references to 3 full length non-routine articles in major newspapers about this person, which alone should be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. With respect to the redirect vs. redline, the original redirect was to a section of a different article that has appropriate information about this person, including a unique accomplishment in which they both shared.  So why would a redline be preferable in this case, regardless of whether he is or becomes notable in the future or not? Rlendog (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as Rlendog and Canada Hky have pointed out above, enough sources have been provided to satisfy the General Notability Guideline. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets GNG due to extent of coverage, so NHOCKEY is a moot point. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2011 (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.