Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connor Chatham


 * 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. A clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Connor Chatham

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: NN amateur player with no accomplishments to speak of, fails NHOCKEY and the GNG going away. Of the sources presented, all are either primary from the organizations with which he's played, blogsites, or routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly barred from supporting notability per WP:ROUTINE.  One of several such creations up at AfD of a semi-SPA who focuses on a handful of junior league teams, and writes in a rah-rah fannish manner unsuitable for the encyclopedia even if the players met notability standards.   Ravenswing   04:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - No evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as still questionable for the necessary improvements and also still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  22:35, 25 April 2016 (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.