Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Bittner


 * 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. Tone 09:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul Bittner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Has not yet played in the NHL nor has he played over 200 AHL games so therefore fails WP:NHOCKEY. Once he achieves either of these the article can be re-created. Tay87 (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete If/When he gains notability it can be re-created. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was expecting to !vote delete since he does not meet NHOCKEY and does not seem to be a particularly impressive prospect, but I found enough coverage to make me believe he passes GNG. He was profiled by both The Hockey News and nhl.com, and has other articles specifically about him, for example here and here.  And while this from the Courier Post and other papers is certainly not significant coverage on its own, it does lend credence to the notion that he was a projected 1st round pick and thus there is likely other coverage from his junior years commensurate with a projected first rounder. Rlendog (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment "thus there is likely" = WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. Go find and add them, then. Narky Blert (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My original statement already included links to multiple sources. Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that Rlendog demonstrated enough of GNG case to merit a keep.18abruce (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Rlendog's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2019 (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.