Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris ingvaldson

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 of the debate was deleted by Xoloz. Sango123 16:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris ingvaldson

Vanity page (by proxy, apparently). The article does assert notability, that he was a member of the Canadian National Field Hockey team, which however does not seem to pass WP:BIO from my perspective. Even if kept, it'll lose about 80% of its content due to WP:OR. No prod because I'm expecting some controversy... hateless 22:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment While the article looks like a vanity article, and the picture is a copyvio, according to the Canadian field hockey web site, this person did play in five games at the top national level in Canadian field hockey. That does meet the WP:BIO criterion for athletes. --John Nagle 22:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, technically he plays at the highest level of a mostly-amateur sport but are we to assume this means every sport? I am against having an article for every major shinty, sepak takraw, table tennis, snowshoeing and paintball athlete in the world. Recury 01:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd throw the article out, but Wikipedia policy accepts as notable anybody who did some national-level thing in some sport somewhere. If we keep it, though, it needs a major rewrite; it has WP:OR, WP:COPY, WP:VAIN, and WP:V problems. Fans, if you're going to write fan articles, please write better ones. Thank you. --John Nagle 02:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Which policy would that be? WP:BIO is a guideline. Recury 02:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: Vanity page. --Ragib 05:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Seems to pass the current criteria, but that could mean that these criteria need reviewing.--Runcorn 10:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 08:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as probable vanity, nn (WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy, and on any reasonable definition this guy is not notable). Batmanand | Talk 09:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. --Coredesat 10:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this but passes WP:BIO if he played for the national field hockey team, he is notable. If somebody with a clue on how to do it can verify it, I will create a one-line stub about that. The information on his pugs we can afford to lose. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete WP:BIO is a guideline, but WP:NOT is policy, and this vanity page clearly fails it. Zero assertion of any notability in an article that suggests musical taste and pug dogs have equal importance to any sporting prowess. There's probably even a case for speedy. --DaveG12345 21:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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.