Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Morley


 * 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) 15:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Tyler Morley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE type sources. WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NHOCKEY with not playing long enough in a well covered league and only a NCAA conference All-Star award, not an All-American Team. (Also created by a user who made tons of these pages that have since been deleted.) Yosemiter (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY, no other evidence of encyclopedic notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG.   Ravenswing   23:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG after doing a search. And they also fail to meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. I'll note, however, that the user in question has created a handful of good pages in between the tons of bad ones, so we should be careful not to delete this or any other page he created just because he created it. We need to consider each page on its own merits of whether it passes NHOCKEY or GNG. This fails both, so delete. Smartyllama (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The user in question made lots of sub-stubs for many subjects. I would actually argue that many of them were notable, but it was usually left to others to make it appear that way. The user made lots of bad ones, as seen by the 250+ notifications on their talk page since 2015. Since the user in question created pages indiscriminately and left a mess behind, we hopefully we are only questioning those that are borderline (such as this example) to obscenely bad (usually via prod). Yosemiter (talk) 20:00, 12 October 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.