Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Coffman

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) 04:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Coffman[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played in lower division hockey, only played 40 professional games going into this season. Ravenswing 06:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find anything that showed he passed GNG and he does not pass NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Dolovis (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Alaska Aces (ECHL). Note: When this ice hockey bio article was created it met the criteria for inclusion under NHOCKEY for playing in the Netherlands' top professional league. Recently, however, the NHOCKEY bar has been raised, and this nominator has been on a tear to delete articles which now may fall short of the newly raised bar. The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting in the last four 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, especially when one considers that many of these AfDs require searching non-English sources. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, 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, including redirects, have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it isn't hard to do since he has only been nominating a reasonable amount each day. Secondly you don't mention that the bar was raised because of the hundreds of non-notable articles you were creating without doing the research first to make sure they met GNG when you created them. Frankly your mass creation of knowingly non-notable articles was the disruptive action here. Nor are prod's intended to be used before Afd. Prod's are only intended for situations where its unlikely anyone will object, as we can see by your keep vote it was clear that that wasn't the case. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 13 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) 21:17, 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.