Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Pitt (2nd nomination)

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. Kurykh (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Pitt[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per (lots) of WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY with no major individual awards and not playing in a high enough league for very long (11 games total in the AHL or similar level, everything else is lower). Yosemiter (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly below standard. I went through his Mercyhurst career, and he meets none of the criteria needed. Third Team All-Star doesn't cut it though. He looked like he may have been a near miss, but definitely below WP:NHOCKEY. Bill McKenna (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another of the many hundreds of non-qualifying articles foisted upon us by Dolovis, for which he was (eventually but not nearly soon enough) community banned from new article creation. This was one of his stocks-in-trade, the claiming in defiance of consensus that a minor honor qualified one under NHOCKEY, which it never has had. The subject is a journeyman in the mid-minors, and it's good that he still has work in the semi-pro British leagues, but he's never qualified under NHOCKEY and there's no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 18:12, 8 February 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.