Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Bailey (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Kyle Bailey (ice hockey)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG; sources are either primary or fail WP:ROUTINE. Did win honors in Canadian collegiate hockey, a level of play ranked below anything reflected in NHOCKEY's criteria. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator.   Ravenswing   11:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or Redirect to List of Minnesota Wild draft picks. 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 (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. 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) 03:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:NCOLLATH establishes presumptive notability for major NCAA Division I awards.  Canadian college hockey, being far less notable, is not covered by its criteria.  As far as alleged sources that meet the GNG are concerned, if you've indeed found some, why didn't you add them to the article? 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   06:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete nn player. A quick glance at google, google news (/archive) and Highbeam searches does not turn up anything that screams "GNG pass" to me. Just some routine mentions in game stories.  It leads me to question whether Dolovis' cut and paste keep rationales are being made in good faith. Resolute 18:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Couldn't find anything in google or any news archives either. Fails GNG and NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily meets NHockey 1 using the Western Hockey League, according to our guidelines. Highbeam yields some 100 results, including headlines: Injured Bailey still hopes to inspire team, Frustrating season overshadowed by memorable goal for Bailey.  You can argue "routine coverage" if you like, but the name in the headlines says not routine to me.   Th e S te ve   08:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the Western Hockey League in the guidelines is a different western hockey league. It was a professional one back in the middle of the last century. So he doesn't meet #1. And most of those results if not all of them are routine game coverage or fall afoul of GEOSCOPE in that they are local in nature. -DJSasso (talk) 15:35, 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) 21:11, 14 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.