Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Branham

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Branham

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

Non-notable hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No Evidence he passes WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've already got one good reference [1] from the Deseret News. Finding references may take some trouble -- there's a high school principal by the same name who was involved in a lurid sodomy case -- but following another AfD where references were easily found, I wonder if the nom has any idea that WP:BEFORE requires nominators to do due diligence and search for references themselves before filing AfDs. Ravenswing 00:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching for "tim branham hockey -sodomy" I couldn't turn up anything beyond routine sports coverage. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't come close to WP:NHOCKEY. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability guidelines for hockey. The Deseret News is based in Salt Lake City, so their covering him is no more notable than coverage they would give to a high school football coach. I can assure you we can find DN coverage of High School football coaches, and we don't want to use that as grounds for creating articles on lots of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with above. Seen a Mike (talk) 20:48, 4 August 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.