Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Vanier

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Vanier

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He has been drafted to the NHL but only in the fourth round. If he plays in the NHL then he should be included, but until then this is a case of WP:NotJustYet. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. While this high second round draft pick falls just short of the criteria of NHOCKEY, the subject does however pass WP:GNG as evidenced by the many independent and reliable sources within the article, and the many more reliable sources which can be easily found on-line. Dolovis (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Sources offered are local, trivial, blogs. Would be curious to see Dolovis demonstrate the existence of "the many more reliable sources which can easily be found on-line", given his history is to claim the existence of sources yet make absolutely no attempt to provide them. Reso lute 16:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and the sources in the article and any I can find online are trivial sources and blogs. -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet the GNG.[1] Mice never shop (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject may or may not meet WP:NHOCKEY, but that is only meant as a rule of thumb, not as a formal policy and does not supersede the requirements of the general notability guidelines: if no appropriate sources can be shown to exist (and I, too, have looked and do not see any) then deletion is an appropriate move. I would also politely ask Dolovis, who has written nearly 6,000 stub articles like this one, to please consider what purpose such articles are serving in the Wikipedia project other than to allow an editor be able to claim having written more than 6,000 articles. Your lukewarm and so far inadequate defense (per Resolute above) of this one is making me think. Can you explain what you are pursuing here? Thanks. KDS4444^Talk 14:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, never mind, it seems you have a very long history of not listening to people, and I doubt you are going to start with me. Fair enough, then. You disappoint me. KDS4444^Talk 16:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dolovis (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not everything you find in Google helps towards notability. --Rob (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be re-created if/when if subject ever does. Patken4 (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.