Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Austring


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Curtis Austring

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable hockey player, complete failure of WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Never has played professional hockey, has spent his career in amateur senior leagues. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator.   Ravenswing   11:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or Redirect to Dr. Randy Gregg Award. Meets criteria of WP:NCOLLATH and a quick search for sources demonstrates he passes GNG. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting in the last four days alone) makes it impossible to fully research all of the articles to prove they meet GNG. Expecting any editor to properly research this large number of articles for GNG sources is not realistic or fair. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you've found sources that pass the GNG, why haven't you added them to the article?  How could a redirect possibly be appropriate for an article that passes the GNG?  In any event, NCOLLATH’s criteria refers explicitly to American collegiate sports; Canadian collegiate hockey, by contrast, is far less notable and thus does not fall under the guideline. That being said, as many as a hundred articles go to AfD every day, and no one expects any editor to research all of them on the spot; happily, since these are Wikipedia's articles, and do not "belong" to any one editor, there's no onus on any one person to do so.  What is seriously disruptive is creating so many BLP articles without even a cursory attempt at proper sourcing.  Perhaps, rather than creating yet more NN sub-stubs, you could turn your attention to that.   Ravenswing   18:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Also fails NCOLLATH, which is more towards American college athletes from my experience. If Canadian collegiate athletes are also covered, I would need to see the discussion that supports that. Patken4 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NN player. Local/routine coverage only. And we've been through this before with you Dolovis, NCOLLATH was built around and refers to the NCAA. CIS does not generate the coverage to warrant such a presumption.  Please stop with the bad faith time-wasting arguments. Resolute 18:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete A search turns up no sources to meet GNG. Anything I found was local or routine. NCOLLATH specifically refers to American collegiate sports, not Canadian. These wikilawyering attempts get tiring after awhile. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 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.