Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Carter (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   delete. Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  04:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Scott Carter (ice hockey)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played exclusively in low-ranking British leagues.   Ravenswing   19:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or Redirect to Wightlink Tigers. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (37-plus 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. 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) 05:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: 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 that. Would you like, by the bye, to proffer a reason to Keep?   Ravenswing   06:30, 12 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) 21:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Neither Highbeam nor Google news archive search bring up any evidence this player meets GNG. Dolovis' attempt at wikilawyering in place of offering a keep rationale is amusing, and pointless. Complaining about the inability to research 37 articles for GNG passes over the cumulative ten day period from the first AFD to the most recent is amusing given he has at times created a considerably greater number of pages in a similar span, obviously without researching them prior to creation.Resolute 23:40, 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.