Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Pilon

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. Sandstein 09:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Pilon[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One of the thousands (I am not making that number up) of NN stub articles created by the infamous Dolovis, like many of the rest this is laden with sources and includes superficial accomplishments that seem noteworthy to the unpracticed eye. None meet the standards of WP:NHOCKEY (as Dolovis well knew, which is why he was community banned from new article creation), and the sources are all passing mentions or primary sources explicitly debarred from certifying notability by WP:ROUTINE. Fails NHOCKEY, fails the GNG. Ravenswing 06:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The May 17, 2015 article from NHL.com is substantive and about him, so should be considered significant, non-routine coverage. But notability requires multiple such sources so unless there are others deletion is appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 9 April 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.