Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Bourque

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. The consensus below is WP:GNG is satisfied. One of the two deletion !votes is improperly based only on the current state of the article rather than its potential, and so was given little weight. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bourque[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or keep - This article appropriately redirected to another well sourced article that discussed the player before the nominator inappropriately expanded it into ~~a bogus~~ an inappropriate standalone article. If the subject is not notable, the redirect should be restored. However, I was able to find some articles specifically about the subject, so he might be notable enough to keep. Rlendog (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sources below, I am inclined to keep, and would be happy to expand the article using those sources once this AfD closes. Rlendog (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to the page it was originally redirected to. The nominator themself created this page and then nominated it for deletion for no apparent reason. If they felt the redirect should have been deleted then they should have put that up at Redirects for discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Doesn't meet NHOCKEY, but there is a significant amount of secondary coverage: Boston Herald, NHL.com, National Post (quoting him, not as significant as the others) Canada Hky (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure nhl.com counts towards notability, but there is also significant independent coverage in the Daily News and others: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and more minor coverage elsewhere [10], [11], [12],[13], [14], [15] Rlendog (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this junior hockey player. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N. A REDLINE is much better than a redirect for young sports persons who might later become notable. Auseplot (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the redirect vs. redline, the original redirect was to a section of a different article that has appropriate information about this person. So why would a redline be preferable in this case, regardless of whether he becomes notable in the future or not? Rlendog (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See for example item 5 under WP:R#KEEP. Rlendog (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources provided by Rlendog meet WP:N quite easily. Hobit (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nontrivial coverage in reliable sources found by Canada Hky (talk · contribs) and Rlendog (talk · contribs) demonstrates that Ryan Bourque is notable. The coverage ranges from 2008 to 2011. Spanning several years, the coverage decisively establishes that Ryan Bourque passes Wikipedia:Notability, which supersedes the subject notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article currently amounts to two lines of text and one reference, so still fails Wikipedia:Notability. If folks are concerned about keeping the article then a little work on the article would not go amis.--Salix (talk): 15:55, 22 April 2011 (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.