Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Campbell (ice hockey, born 1979)


 * 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) 01:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ryan Campbell (ice hockey, born 1979)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played several years in the lower minors without distinction. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator.   Ravenswing   11:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Dolovis (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or Redirect to Braehead Clan. This player has played nine years and over 400 games as a professional. Note: When this ice hockey bio article was created it met the criteria for inclusion under NHOCKEY for playing over 100 pro games, and also for playing in Great Britain's top professional league. 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 four 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 non-English 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 have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: As you well know, "playing over 100 pro games" has never satisfied NHOCKEY's criteria, and is a blatant mischaracterization of the same: the old guideline stated that a player who played 100 games in a top level minor league was presumed notable, and the CHL (in which the subject largely played) was explicitly not one of those leagues. Britain's fringe leagues have never been considered as conferring presumptive notability.  In any event, notability criteria have been tightened many times on Wikipedia, and "grandfathering" articles has never been permitted under deletion policy.  That being said, as many as a hundred articles go to AfD every day, and no one expects any editor to research all of them on the spot; happily, since these are Wikipedia's articles, and do not "belong" to any one editor, there's no onus on any one person to do so.  What is seriously disruptive is creating so many BLP articles without even a cursory attempt at proper sourcing.  Perhaps, rather than creating yet more NN sub-stubs, you could turn your attention to doing so.  This article, for instance, was created over three months ago, and you haven't made an edit to it since.  Why not?   Ravenswing   18:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. British Elite League isn't considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete A search has not turned up any sources to meet GNG. And the fact that they don't currently meet NHOCKEY all points to a delete. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 13 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.