Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Franks

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) 01:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Franks

(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 the low minors and the German minor leagues. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator. Ravenswing 11:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search for sources demonstrates he likely passes GNG. Note: When this ice hockey bio article was created it met the criteria for inclusion under NHOCKEY. 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 (37-plus in the last three 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 pre-Internet 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 have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As it happens, the subject does not meet the old NHOCKEY criteria, never mind the new set. If there are sources which meet the GNG -- and don't run afoul of WP:ROUTINE and WP:GEOSCOPE -- kindly add them to the article, and if I'm satisfied, I will cheerfully withdraw the nomination.
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 06:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY and has not received enough significant coverage to pass GNG. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet GNG in a search for sources and does not meet NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 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) 21:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. Reso lute 03:56, 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.