Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristoval Nieves


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cristoval Nieves

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The player does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He is a college player, selected in the 2nd round of the NHL Entry Draft, has not won any significant awards. Þórr Óðinn Týr Eh? 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Þórr Óðinn Týr  Eh? 22:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Martin 4 5 1  22:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin 4 5 1  22:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NHOCKEY, per nom. No evidence that the subject passes the GNG.   Ravenswing   23:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agreed that it fails WP:NHOCKEY. United States Man (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Does get a solid mention in this New York Times piece, but as an example of a different story, not as the focus.  That said, it is a good start, but not quite enough for a GNG pass. Resolute 02:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet NHOCKEY and can't find enougth to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2012–13 New York Rangers season where he is mentioned. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives, including redirects, have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I realize you are only trying to save your first edit to the page in case the player becomes notable later, but you are also aware given the result of a few recent RfDs that this would not be an appropriate redirect given it is both an implausible search term and because there is no clear target. All you are doing here is trying to frustrate community consensus by forcing us into yet another venue to try and clean up the mess you've made. Resolute 23:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your assumption of my reasons for suggesting "redirect" are flagrantly wrong. My opinions are based on policy and common sense: 1) the article has already been created and if deleted it will likely need to be recreated in the future anyway; 2) there is a plausible target for a redirect, 3) Redirects are cheap and follow the guidelines of WP:BEFORE. And for the record - I didn't create this article. Dolovis (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2014 (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.