Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Furlatt

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 '. I'm going to be bold and close this with absolutely no prejudice towards renominating individually or smaller groups of VERY similar pages. The exceedingly large number of pages nominated makes individual assessments very difficult. J04n(talk page) 12:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Furlatt

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

On a previous discussion,

WP:BLP purposes. And, as noted in that previous AFD discussion, this type of article only attracts periodic vandalism and BLP violations every time they make a controversial call. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also have these issues:

)

Comment - I'd be a bit cautious about mass-nominating a whole bunch of BLPs for AFD on the basis that a single previous AFD about a related/similar BLP was closed as delete (or redirect as was the case). There's obviously a consensus there but I don't see a particular strong consensus. There was plenty of commentary in favour of revisiting
WP:GNG, then by all means - I would say most of the above would go. I'm just not sure those questions have been resolved. Stalwart111 05:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Outright delete 33 of them, give 6 a closer look I quickly looked at all 39. 33 of them (all except Mike Civik, Faucette, Hoggarty, Meier, Nelson, Walsh) are a slam dunk for deletion......zero wp:notability suitable coverage. The "source" for most of them was a few factoids from a database in a database driven web page. The other "sources" were even worse. For example, using Wikipedia articles as sources, or a "source"/"cite" that consists of merely the name of a newspaper. The listed 6 are the arguable ones, they had some at least possibly wp:notability-suitable coverage, with the Walsh coverage being the strongest of the 6. I'd call Walsh a "weak keep" and the other 5 "weak deletes" North8000 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose all as a group nom. A number of these guys were also players and meet the requirements under player guidelines such as Dan O'Rourke (ice hockey). Others are notable refs. These need to be done in smaller batches. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

t • c) 09:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose all per DJSasso. Patken4 (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I'm not really sure how this process works, but Chris Rooney's page could be of note if reference to the Feb. 4, 2013, incident during the Colorado Avalanche/Dallas Stars game where he took a deflected shot to the face and had to leave the game were mentioned. It's one of those trivial things that some may find interesting. On another note, I get the sentiment of wanting to keep the ref pages spam- and flame-free, but you can't necessarily shut a page down just because the subject is unpopular. Just make sure that there is more information than "This person exists" on each. Mark down any milestones of which you are aware for the referee; anything else that could be deemed noteworthy; etc. —Whatever my IP address is since I don't have an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.181.239 (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2013 (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.