Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Puempel

: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 keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

=[[Matthew Puempel]]=

:{{la|Matthew Puempel}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Matthew Puempel}})

The notion that a "CHL Rookie of the Year" award = preeminent honor is not the intent of WP:NHOCKEY. Favoid (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep CHL (as well as OHL, WHL and QMJHL) ROTY has been discussed as a preeminent honour in other AfD's (Ryan Nugent-Hopkins and Nail Yakupov recently). When evaluating "preeminent honour", I have always considered it to be the Top 5 awards (MVP, Top D, Top Goalie, Top Scorer and Top Rookie). There is also a significant amount of coverage: [http://www.windsorstar.com/sports/Puempel+talks+talk/4865367/story.html Windsor Star], [http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/23349-Prep-Watch-Puempels-power.html The Hockey News], [http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=557016 NHL.com], [http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=554434 NHL.com] Canada Hky (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: CHL Rookie of the Year is certainly a preeminent honour. Also, meets GNG through [http://www.windsorstar.com/sports/Puempel+talks+talk/4865367/story.html]. – Nurmsook! talk... 17:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per CanadaHky. I definitely consider Rookie of the Year to be a pre-eminent honour. At any rate, he easily passes GNG per the linked articles. Resolute 19:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per above. ROY is a notable award. Patken4 (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2011 (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.