Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Ullrich

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) 00:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ullrich

(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. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator. Ravenswing 10:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN player. Reso lute 18:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to 2011–12 Tulsa Oilers season. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting in the last four days alone) 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) 03:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 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. Would you like, by the bye, to proffer a reason to Keep, valid or otherwise? Ravenswing 07:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search turns up no sources to meet GNG. Also fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 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. Can be re-created if he ever does meet the guidelines. Patken4 (talk) 21:09, 14 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.