Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brayden McNabb

: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 no consensus. no clear consensus to delete but, looking at policy, I do wonder if, in these BLP sensitive days, subguidelines to make unreferenced individuals notable are actually sustainable anymore. This probably needs a meta discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 04:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

=[[Brayden McNabb]]=

:{{la|Brayden McNabb}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brayden McNabb}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Brayden McNabb}})

Expired prod that should have been deleted but an editor removed the prod because I forgot an edit summary. Non-notable junior player who has yet to play professionally and fails WP:NSPORTS can be recreated when/if he achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete per norm--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Was on the 2009-10 WHL Eastern Conference All-Star First Team, which could satisfy point four of the NHOCKEY criteria. Not sure if this is enough. Patken4 (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep: It's not that that "could" satisfy WP:NHOCKEY; it explicitly does satisfy criteria #4. "Achieved preeminent honours (... first team all-star ...) ... in a major junior league such as the Ontario Hockey Association or the Western Hockey League ..."  Ravenswing  13:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

::The reason I said "could" was because the all-star teams were broken up by conference, not league. So in the WHL, you would have 12 first team all-star members, not the usual 6. I didn't know if there was another list that further split this group of 12 into a first team and second team. Regardless, given that you agree, Keep. Patken4 (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Yeah I went back and forth on that one. Either way, it still needs multiple independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Remember that meeting NSPORTS isn't a guarantee'd keep. -DJSasso (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - Meets requirements of WP:NHOCKEY. Not only was McNabb named to the 2009-10 Eastern Conference First All-Star Team,[http://www.whl.ca/whl-announces-2009-10-eastern-conference-all-star-teams-and-award-finalists-p141453] he also won a gold medal with Team Canada at the 2008 Ivan Hlinka Memorial, played in the 2009 Under-18 World Championships, and was selected to the 2009 CHL Top Prospects game.[http://www.nhl.com/ice/draftprospectdetail.htm?csid=622797] Moorsmur (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep per Moorsmur. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • :Keep per Moorsmur, its close but I think there's enough to keep, esp since we keep deleting players only to redo the article a couple years later once they're in the NHL.Bhockey10 (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • We could always recreate or restore the article in the future that's not really a valid reason for keeping an article. Secret account 02:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Once he establishes notability we can then create an article about him. See WP:RS and WP:Notability. EnabledDanger (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I trust Djsasso judgement on hockey players, he doesn't meet the reliable sources we need to create an article. Also fails WP:ATHLETE but that's an essay, not policy. Secret account 02:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Moorsmur. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2010 (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.