Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Gettinger

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Gettinger

Tim Gettinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Merely selecting someone in the NHL draft does not make him notable, and I do not see any other notability claims in the article. Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY. –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 15:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Late round amateur hockey player of no particular distinction, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 05:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Likely a too soon candidate. -DJSasso (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think this is actually a closer case than many of the hockey deletion discussions we have had recently. But he clearly fails NHOCKEY and while he has some coverage the best I found was this from nhl.com, some coverage local to his junior team, of which I think this is the best, and a couple of sentences here. And I don't think that is enough to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2017 (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.