Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brycen Martin

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) 16:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brycen Martin[edit]

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

Not seeing the sources for this player that meets WP:GNG and is currently well below the standards of WP:NHOCKEY. (Not to mention that this article was created by a user who has since been banned from creating hockey player articles such as this.) De-prodded by user stating "there are enough sources that he may pass WP:GNG." Number of sources are irrelevant when they are all stats pages, WP:ROUTINE signings and transactions, a large number of local news coverage (as is "Look what the local kid is doing" variety), and blogs. He gets the typical prospect coverage for his speculative potential in the NHL, but the coverage was not continued. Currently just WP:TOOSOON for notability and can be re-created when/if he generates more coverage. Yosemiter (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yosemiter sums it up quite well. Number of mentions in sources does not matter. They must go in depth and not be routine coverage. This player does not currently meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and yet another article on a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2017 (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.