Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mac Bennett


 * 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. The consensus is for deletion on the basis that the subject fails the relevant inclusion guidelines. The consensus in respect of the coverage presented is that (a) it does not establish notability and (b) is related only to one event. Mkativerata (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mac Bennett

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Disputed prod. Disputer said there were lots of google hits, however most if not all of the google hits I have looked at are trivial coverage and not enough to establish notability. He is a non-notable amateur hockey player who has yet to play professionally or meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Players at this level are routinely deleted. DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —DJSasso (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY, no assertion of notability. Resolute 17:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Coverage exists, for example Draft prospect Bennett has bright future (NHL.COM) or Rhode Islanders Bennett, Deblois expected to be picked in NHL draft (Providence Journal) or Mac Bennett picked by Canadiens (Providence Journal) VER  Tott  18:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All of which center around the draft which means it is a case of WP:BLP1E. Flash in the pan news stories are not enough to establish notability. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. VER  Tott  18:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable amateur ice hockey player, and even under the overly generous inclusion policy of WP:NHOCKEY, he doesn't qualify for an exemption to WP:N. The sources cited are some local interest mentions and an nhl.com look at the draft prospects.  Nothing here that sets him apart from any other player who has been drafted.  Mandsford 19:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable amateur player. Third round draft pick. Has not played one second of professional hockey. --Smashvilletalk 20:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news search for his name and the word "hockey" show ample results.  Click on the first result, and you'll see an entire article dedicated to him in detail, not just a brief mention of the draft.    D r e a m Focus  04:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * An article that was written because he was drafted. Which still falls under the BLP1E. Without the event the article wouldn't have been written. Of those 88 ghits none are anything other than a passing mention (ie routine coverage) or a story stemming from his drafting, which is a flash in the pan news event. So still a case of BLP1E. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Coverage of his drafting falls under WP:BLP1E.  Let's wait until he actually plays some pro hockey.  Snotty Wong   chat 00:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd add that even the "1E" isn't that notable. He got drafted.  So did 210 other people that week.  Like graduating from Harvard, it's an accomplishment, but not the basis for an article.  Mandsford 01:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: Subject does not meet the notability criteria required. The article for this player may be recreated after he has played his first NHL game, or otherwise after he meets the inclusion criteria per WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:HOCKEY/PPF. Dolovis (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * DeletePer above; Does not satisfy WP:NHOCKEY and GNG. These plentiful articles that exist on google are not apparent in the article nor the ones indicated do i feel show GNG (ie BLP1E). Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2010 (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.