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. Consensus is to delete. I did not place any weight on the 'keep' !vote as this is not a policy or guideline argument. The article can be undeleted if the subject becomes notable in the future, as DJSasso noted, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Jenks (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)

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep almost had 100 points in the OHL Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make him notable. Joeykai (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One, I'm afraid, of a number of spurious Keeps in the last week by this new editor. Ravenswing 04:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails both NHOCKEY and the GNG, doesn't meet any notability criteria. Ravenswing 04:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He falls just 17 games short of passing WP:HOCKEY, it does not look like he can pass WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes me wonder if it would be better to hold off on deletion until next season starts. If he retires or starts the season in ECHL it may make sense to delete then, but if he starts in AHL, he is likely to quickly reach the 200 game threshold, making deletion now spurious. 21:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately we cannot do that as your argument falls under WP:CRYSTAL. I see no reason why this article would need to be salted, so recreation would not be a problem if he ever hits the needed criteria. Deadman137 (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And admin, (often me) just undeletes such articles if they become notable in the future. -DJSasso (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not appear to meet GNG and is still short of NHOCKEY (although failing GNG would negate NHOCKEY anyway). -DJSasso (talk) 11:02, 24 May 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.