Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Carter (ice hockey)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ravenswing (talk | contribs) at 06:30, 12 January 2014 (Scott Carter (ice hockey)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Scott Carter (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]