Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff White (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   delete. Evidence of notability has not been established by those asking for this BLP's inclusion. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 22:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Jeff White (ice hockey)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable hockey player, no evidence he meets the GNG. Has had a long career, but in the low minors without preeminent honors, and therefore fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY.   Ravenswing   03:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect to 2009–10 SPHL season where he is mentioned. Played 14 years of pro hockey. A quick Internet search shows that he likely passes GNG. Note: When this ice hockey bio article was created it met the criteria for inclusion under NHOCKEY as a player with 100+ games played. 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 (45-plus and counting 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 non-English 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, including redirects, have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: As you well know, NHOCKEY's criteria have never held "100 pro games" as an acceptable standard, and the leagues in which the subject played were at Criterion #4, which requires a player to have achieved "preeminent honors" -- to wit, being a top ten career scorer or making the First All-Star Team.  That criterion hasn't changed, even if Wikipedia policy holds that articles would be "grandfathered" when notability criteria were tightened, which is not and never has been the case. Beyond that, if you've found sources that pass the GNG, why haven't you added them to the article?  Why did you fail to do such research when you created the article, as anyone creating a BLP must do? 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   00:55, 14 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) 21:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails GNG.  I'm not seeing evidence of non-trivial coverage in either Highbeam or Google newspaper archive. Resolute 23:46, 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.