Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dal Colle

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dal Colle[edit]

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

Non-notable teenage hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Has not achieved the "preeminent honors" required at his level of play to meet NHOCKEY's criteria. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator. No prejudice against recreation should the subject meet any of the criteria in the future. Ravenswing 11:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to 2014 NHL Entry Draft. A quick search for sources demonstrates he passes GNG. 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. 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) 03:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as alleged sources that meet the GNG are concerned, if you've indeed found some, why didn't you add them to the article? (And if such sources exist, why would a redirect possibly be an appropriate action to take?)
That being said, 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. Ravenswing 06:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn junior hockey player. Reso lute 18:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources in a search to meet GNG or NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of the Canada men's national under-18 ice hockey team, meeting NHOCKEY 2 (Highest possible junior level) & won a gold frickin medal at the 2013 Ivan Hlinka Memorial, which got A LOT of coverage. There are many sources 2. The Steve 08:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Playing on tournament teams does not satisfy any criteria of NHOCKEY; consensus has long held that only regular season play with a regular team qualifies. In any event, NHOCKEY's criterion governing major junior hockey (#4) only qualifies a player who has achieved "preeminent honors," which is explicitly defined as being a top ten all-time career scorer or being named to a First All-Star Team. Dal Colle hasn't done these things. The subject needs, therefore, to pass the GNG outright, and routine sports coverage is debarred under WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 11:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
International play is handled by #6 which requires he plays on the senior team, not a junior team. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 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.