Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Sanvido

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 Rlendog (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Sanvido

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN amateur player with no accomplishments to speak of, fails NHOCKEY and the GNG going away. Of the sources presented, all are either primary from the organizations with which he's played, blogsites, or routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly barred from supporting notability per WP:ROUTINE. One of several such creations up at AfD of a semi-SPA who focuses on a handful of junior league teams, and writes in a rah-rah fannish manner unsuitable for the encyclopedia even if the players met notability standards. Ravenswing 04:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing GNG and other notability criteria, but I should remind Ravenswing that AfD is not Cleanup and an inappropriate style, is, in itself, not reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, no reminders needed. I expect you noticed that no such reason was proffered, "in itself," for deletion. Ravenswing 19:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I did. I'm just saying that the fact that it was written "in a rah-rah fannish manner unsuitable for the encyclopedia" is not cause for deletion. I agree with the rest of what you said. Smartyllama (talk) 20:03, 18 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.