Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Conacher

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 20:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Conacher

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Probably also WP:TOOSOON. Yosemiter (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon for this, fails criteria needed for article. Deadman137 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some routine sports coverage is not enough to meet WP:GNG and fails WP:NHOCKEY. Mdtemp (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY clearly, but the WP:GNG evaluation is more tricky. Ultimately I think deletion is the best option for now, because the coverage in reliable sources is general and not about him for the most part. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: This is a near miss, because the Buffalo News "band of brothers" article plainly satisfies the GNG, and just one other such reference would be a GNG pass. The other cites don't clear ROUTINE, but I could flip to a keep vote in a hurry were one to appear. Ravenswing 12:51, 4 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.