Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Kerdiles


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicolas Kerdiles

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable junior hockey player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he meets NHOCKEY or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP Played in a world championships and won it and is in the NCAA which according to WP:HOCKEY is within the groups taskforce so must be notable Seasider91 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:NHOCKEY which is the notability required of a player. You will see he had to play in the senior world championships to be considered notable. He played in the under 17 and under 18 world championships. As for the NCAA it specifically mentions that just playing in the NCAA is not sufficient for notability. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. The U-17 and U-18 championships aren't even the highest level tournament for junior players, let alone highest in hockey.  It appears the article was created on the basis of the player being a top prospect for the 2012 draft, but that reading of the crystal ball did not come to pass. Resolute 16:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: One of two hockey-related deleted prods very quietly recreated, and I can't imagine why; what notability criteria, the GNG included, did the admin in question fancy this subject meets?   Ravenswing   19:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. Unless there is an overriding reason not to restore (i.e.: copyvio), any contested PROD is restored on request. The restoring admin made no value judgement on notability in doing so. Resolute 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he does.  Patken4 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I thought I was going to !vote delete, but I found more coverage than I expected:, , and an ESPN story I can't access now.  It may not be quite enough to meet GNG, but enough to put me on the fence. Rlendog (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment to nominator - Please consider Bundling AfD's as you nominated four articles on Ice Hockey players within 4 minutes, to make it easier for those participating in the discussion it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It generally makes it easier on those participating to have them separate. Especially in cases like this where they were disputed prods. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The majority of AfDs are disputed PRODs. Most of your AfDs have got plenty of input so far but in some cases where people list separately where they could have been bundled, one AfD could receive alot of input whereas another receives little & is therefore relisted unnecessarily so. Anyway I was just saying to consider it, not implying you must. Regards. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally I have found bundled Afds often result in no consensus far more often than individual listings because people get caught up in the fact that not every subject listed has circumstances that are exactly the same. I only bundle when it is clear cut that the outcome for all of them must be the same. This is rarely the case with human subjects, especially athletes. So in general I find I get better input when they are separate than together. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fare enough just a matter of opinion. Association football players are often bundled together without a problem anyway thanks for the response, I think we'll leave it at that no need to distract from the real topic under discussion. Happy editing &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Each of the subjects of these nominations has a different level of coverage and other different circumstances in terms of awards or experience, which in some cases could make a difference in whether the article is kept or deleted. So nominating separately was the most appropriate approach. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:41, 6 July 2012 (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.