Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Smith (ice hockey, born 1951)


 * 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. Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  04:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Dave Smith (ice hockey, born 1951)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played briefly in the minor leagues without distinction.   Ravenswing   20:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete does not pass WP:NHOCKEY, nothing to suggest notability for GNG Þórr Óðinn Týr  Eh? 16:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or Redirect to 1971–72 St. Louis Blues season. As a four year pro he likely passes GNG. The Kansas City Blues were the top farm team of the St. Louis Blues, and the Fort Worth Wings were the top farm team of the Detroit Red Wings. Even under the new higher bar of NHOCKEY this player should meet the criteria for presumption of notability in the same way an AHL player of today would pass NHOCKEY. Note: When this ice hockey bio article was created it clearly met the criteria for inclusion under NHOCKEY. Recently, however, the NHOCKEY bar has been raised, and this nominator has been on a tear to delete articles which now may fall short of the newly raised bar. The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (37-plus in the last three 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, especially when one considers that many of these AfDs require searching pre-Internet sources. 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) 04:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: As it happens, playing a season and a half in the mid-minors did not satisfy NHOCKEY's old criteria, never mind the revised criteria.  This is not the first time that notability criteria has changed on Wikipedia, and we have never "grandfathered" an article which fails of notability under such revised criteria. 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   06:38, 12 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) 21:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - . Not sure if the CHL is considered a "top-level minor league", but either way the subject of the article played less than 200 and did not achieve any preeminent honors, so he fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has not received enough significant coverage to pass GNG either. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete A search has not turned up any sources to meet GNG. And he fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete As with Djsasso, I have not located the kind of sources necessary to meet GNG. If Dolovis believes he "likely passes GNG", I would like to see him provide the sources that justify his assertion. Resolute 23:27, 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.