Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhett Dudley


 * 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) 05:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Rhett Dudley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, played only a handful of games out of the low minors. Only reference is a jocular blog post, no evidence the subject passes the GNG.   Ravenswing   03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 8.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 03:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 9 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) 21:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect to Northern Michigan Predators where he is mentioned. Played 10 years of pro hockey. A quick Internet search shows that he likely passes GNG. Note: When this ice hockey bio article was created it met the criteria for inclusion under NHOCKEY as a player with 100+ pro games played. Recently, however, the NHOCKEY bar has been raised, and this nominator has been on a tear to delete articles which now may fall short of the newly raised bar. The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting 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, especially when one considers that many of these AfDs require searching pre-Internet sources. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives, including redirects, have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails GNG. A search of Highbeam and Google news archive makes it obvious that Dolovis' cut-and-paste claim that he "likely passes GNG" was made without even attempting a search. It is also amusing that he claims the number of AfDs makes it impossible to research these players, despite claiming to have already researched these players. Resolute 00:08, 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.