Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Estoclet

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Estoclet[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NHOCKEY as he is currently playing for a professional team in the highest level league in Italy. Delta13C (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NHOCKEY/LA the Italian league is lower-level and can only satisfy criterion #4 of NHOCKEY, which is "achieved preeminent honors." He has received no honors and fails NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)\[reply]

But did he received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG? If so, whether he meets WP:NHOCKEY is irrelevant. Rlendog (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That really is up to you to proove if you think that is the case. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rlendog, you do ask this question a fair bit, and Djsasso is right: the onus is on an editor who seeks to save an article to produce qualifying sources. If you have, please do let us know. If you hadn't, why raise the subject? Ravenswing 13:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because merely failing WP:NHOCKEY is not a valid reason to delete, since failing the specific criteria is irrelevant if the subject passes WP:GNG. In order to have an effective discussion the nominator should at least check for WP:GNG and state why the coverage found was insufficient (even as simple as "I did a Google search and found only routine coverage.") But in a number of recent cases, this nominator has started AfDs and I have looked for coverage and easily found significant coverage in a Google search. If the nominator is unwilling to do even a cursory search for sources (I note that you and DJSasso have responded to my comments on this subject, but not the nominator himself, and the two of you have bothered looking for sources), it is not appropriate to expect others to do so, WP:BEFORE. 17:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlendog (talk • contribs)

Be aware that you should assume good faith. Just because someone doesn't mention it in their nomination statement, does not mean they have not done it. The whole purpose of NHOCKEY is a quick way to say if it is likely someone passes GNG or does not pass GNG so it is a completely valid deletion argument until it is proven that they do meet GNG. In saying that I do agree that they very much need to increase what they say in their nomination statements and have mentioned it to them on their talk page. Hopefully they will take that message to heart. -DJSasso (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm simply still not seeing anything to noticeably suggest his own solidly independently notable article, delete at best since there's nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:NHOCKEY and any coverage on him is routine sports coverage so he fails WP:GNG as well. Deadman137 (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NHOCKEY and I can find no evidence of meeting GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Even for Dolovis, this is a curious one: there was just nothing there when the article was created even by his oft-spurious standards. The subject's done OK in lesser Euroleagues since, but nothing to meet any notability standards. Ravenswing 13:16, 1 June 2016 (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.