Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Toews


 * 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. The two references do not seem to make him pass WP:GNG.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Warren Toews

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no sources that satisfy the GNG which don't violate WP:ROUTINE or WP:GEOSCOPE. Has played most of his career in amateur senior leagues.   Ravenswing   03:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Hwy43 (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY at all and the only references on the page are routine coverage. A quick search shows none that meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Jesus Dolovis. You bruit the "played 100 games" argument of WP:NHOCKEY about like it is an impervious shield, then go and waste everyone's time creating articles on players that don't even meet that flimsy criteria? Routine coverage only, nn player. Resolute 15:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG.  Can be re-created if he ever does.   Patken4 (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – with respect to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT iVotes above, this subject meets WP:GNG with reliable and independent sources providing significant coverage including which are included in the article and are in no way "rountine" as they cover the subject in significant detail. There are likely more to be found with a diligent search, but two is all that is needed to satisfy GNG. Dolovis (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the second one is actually in the definition of what a routine article is. Q&A sessions are listed as an example of routine. As for the first one it is an article about alumni, which are done about numerous alumni which makes it a routine news story. Routine doesn't just mean lack of detail, it means that it is done indiscriminately, as in it is done for people who aren't notable as well as notable. Not to mention its a local article about a local alumni which means it fails GEOSCOPE. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2013 (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.