Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Bennett (ice hockey)

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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Bennett (ice hockey)[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 beyond routine coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE and WP:GEOSCOPE. No prejudice against recreation should the subject do any of the things which denote notability. Ravenswing 11:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to 2014 NHL Entry Draft. Currently pegged as the third best player eligible for the 2014 NHL Entry Draft. He passes GNG as demonstrated by the sources in the article and Gnews. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus in the last three days alone) going straight to AfD, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. 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) 03:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A completely absurd response. First off, none of the sources in the article meet the GNG or WP:ROUTINE, and indeed only one is anything beyond mentioning the subject's name, when the GNG requires that a subject be discussed in "significant detail"; you know better than to try to claim that they do. Secondly, if the player did meet the GNG, how could a redirect possibly be appropriate ... never mind to the article on a draft that hasn't happened yet, and to which no one could claim that this player has any manner of association?
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 07:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet GNG by a long shot. NHOCKEY also has not been met. And redirecting to a draft that hasn't happened yet and he is not associated with is ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per some coverage in reliable independent sources and pending draft outcome. No reason to rush deletion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral As of now, Sam Bennett's name is only talked about because of his number one ranking on the CSS list, and before that was not notable at all to most of the hockey world. This means that according to the guidelines, the article should be deleted. However, I'm certain that he's going to gain some traction in the coming weeks, so having the article deleted for about a month or so seems like an unnecessary action to take in my opinion. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A suggestion would be to redirect the article to Kingston Frontenacs if the consensus is to delete or redirect the article. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be a very poor redirect since his name will eventually be removed from the roster list when he leaves the team, leaving no mention at all. That said... Reso lute 04:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notwithstanding the fact that Dolovis created this to feed his ego when the player was clearly non-notable, the situation has changed in the three months since. Bennett has received not insignificant national coverage since being named the top prospect for the 2014 Draft - [1], [2], [3] (Last is the local paper, but also a feature story that appeared on the front page). Those three sources alone are enough for me, and I could develop this into a small article that is actually useful to the reader. Reso lute 04:14, 18 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.