Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Saad (2nd nomination)


 * 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. v/r - TP 23:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Brandon Saad
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject of article has not yet attained notability standard of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Achievements at lower age groups, but not at junior (under-20) or junior-level (under-20)championships or college-levels. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources: |topnews|text|Sports,, , , and apparently a few ESPN articles. Rlendog (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 22:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject has won major awards. The article could use an expert on the genre to flesh out the biography a bit more. --Ozgod (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The NAHL is not major. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a matter of opinion. Consensus may be so, or it may not be. Rlendog (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tier II league. See the NAHL article. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it is not. But other editors seem to believe it is major enough to meet NHOCKEY, as they interpret it. Rlendog (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Provided links show that Saad meets GNG.  Canada Hky (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just routine draft coverage. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Much, but not all, is draft coverage, but not routine coverage. See, for example, Collin Sullentrop, for a case of routine draft coverage. Rlendog (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hasn't won a major award as the NAHL doesn't get a lot of coverage outside of it's home markets (and even in some cases in it's home markets).  However, subject meets GNG per the USAToday and THN articles.  Patken4 (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just routine draft coverage. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Much, but not all, is draft coverage, but not routine coverage. See, for example, Collin Sullentrop, for a case of routine draft coverage. Rlendog (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Being named the NAHL Rookie of the Year and being selected to the NAHL First All-Star Team are preeminent honours which meets NHOCKEY criteria #4, and so is being named to the World U-17 Hockey Challenge Tournament All-Star Team, but that discussion is moot as this player passes GNG as demonstrated by the significant and non-routine coverage he has received in reliable sources as found by Rlendog. Dolovis (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think of the NAHL as a major junior league. It's a "Junior A Tier II league", as mentioned in its article. Then we would have to include all-stars from something like a dozen of those leagues in Canada. (BCJHL,etc.) As for the articles pointed out by Rlendog, these all seem related to the NHL draft. I think they are a bit iffy. I think that those are not enough for several reasons- the discussion includes other prospects, he's the subject of a regular column on prospects, and when it comes to the draft, it's all part of the discussion of the draft, and a one time occurrence. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All the stories I linked to were published at various times prior to the draft. The Detroit Free Press story and Hockey News story are solely about Saad.  The Michigan Live story is about Saad and one other player; the fact that it covers two players doesn't mean it doesn't give Saad significant coverage.  The USA Today story does cover other prospects, and is the most skimpy in its coverage of Saad, but it still gives 3+ paragraphs on Saad and makes him the story lead (over 1st round draftee JT Miller and uncontroversially notable Rocco Gimaldi), regarding him as the top of the USA crop.  The Hockey News story is from a column that covers prospects, but the fact is that Kennedy covered Saad in detail in his column, and not, say Collin Sullentrop.  Only a limited number of players get such a column, many if not most end up as #1 picks, and if they are not #1 picks they still need coverage besides this column to meet GNG.  Saad did get the column and additional coverage, and thus does meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all draft-related. A single event. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Hockey News article was about him being a good prospect. It would exist and he would have been a good prospect with significant coverage by The Hockey News even if for some reason he was never drafted.  And he received significant coverage, and indeed was drafted, because of his performance in many games - many of which were covered in reliable sources (albeit not in themselves establishing notability).  Many events. Rlendog (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And the USA Today article was published 8 months before the draft, although its coverage of Saad is more limited. Rlendog (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep there seems to be significant coverage. In addition he was one of the potential first rounders (ranked 19 by Central Scouting) who slipped into the top half of second round. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes notability. Plenty of news coverage.--EdwardZhao (talk) 18:23, 5 July 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.