Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Kell

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Kell[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No Evidence he passes WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:NHOCKEY, I am not sure he fails #3 because I don't know which of his games to count or what to make of his CHL honors. If only his AHL games count toward 200, then he should be deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY. According to WP:NHOCKEY/LA the ECHL does not count toward criteria 3. Also lacks the coverage required to meet GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Not a good sign when your biggest claim to fame is finishing second in an online poll of "most underrated player". Reso lute 18:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and WP:NHOCKEY as only his AHL games would count toward the 200 games. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:36, 30 July 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.