Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Powell (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Powell (ice hockey)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NHOCKEY, contested PROD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  15:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  15:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  15:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. The "walking on water" part was too much. sixty nine   • speak up •  15:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "walking on water" part is obviously vandalism and shouldn't factor in wether the article should be deleted or not. - Dammit_steve (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm well aware of that and it didn't factor in my decision at all. sixty nine   • speak up •  21:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails NHOCKEY for sure. A good test for knowledgeable Australia hockey fans; long time national team member and league MVP.  With those credentials either we are missing the sources that provide GNG, or this in a firm indictment of the notability of Australian hockey.  The wikipedia page only contains verification of statistics.  This blog is the best I could find but perhaps the Melbourne newspapers might have something.18abruce (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG.   Ravenswing   17:28, 9 August 2017 (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.