Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Lee (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   keep. Snow closure. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  18:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike Lee (ice hockey)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't meet NHOCKEY. Couldn’t find significant coverage from websites. Tubetest (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Adequate significant coverage in the sources in article to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  00:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Of Course Keep, self-evident legitimate ice hockey entry--GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Reliability in Sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plenty of significant coverage from independent and reliable sources presented in the article. Passes WP:GNG.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  18:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets criteria of NHOCKEY, sources are reliable MisterRichValentine (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Search the news archive a bit harder.   D r e a m Focus  22:40, 3 November 2011 (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.