Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Ritchie


 * 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 sources presented indicate that the subject of the article meets the required criteria for the general notability guideline, significant coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  00:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Brett Ritchie

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:REFUND resorted article, but does not meet WP:GNG (or WP:NHOCKEY) Mtking (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —Dolovis (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  —Dolovis (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This player has not yet established himself as a professional, but he has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including:
 * Fox News feature article
 * The Observer feature article
 * Orangeville Banner feature article
 * Dan Swallows featured profile.

to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article per WP:GNG. Dolovis (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Second round draft pick of the Dallas Stars in this past June's draft (might have been first round if he didn't get mono) and also per Dolovis; I would have brought up the notability coverage myself if he hadn't. Further, I JUST had the article undeleted so I could look at it for the first time and you immediately put it back up for deletion before I can even work on it, suggesting a bad faith AfD nom. after I noted in my edit comment YESTERDAY I wanted to work on it first before an AfD was done; give a guy a chance here, would ya?  (All right, it went to AfD before my edit comment, that was my misread.)  He has participated in international competitions as well, in fact he had to play his teammate Nail Yakupov for the bronze medal in the IIHF (Yakupov's Russian team won); if I'm not mistaken, U18 teams qualify for inclusion themselves, but even if not, WP:GNG is satisfied and trumps WP:NHOCKEY.  CycloneGU (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * this edit summary is interesting, U18 teams don't and nore do second round draft pics. Mtking (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew 2nd round draft picks typically didn't, though I did think U18 did. Regardless, I have no shame in telling it like it is (he is my Dad's favourite player, even has an autographed jersey that will probably be worth a few bucks someday).  But regardless of all this, he satisfies the criteria of WP:GNG.  Clearly I know his history (at least the last year, I didn't see much of the 2009-10 season but for a few games, got boring when the Sting had the lowest record in the league), so I'm merely stating that I have good knowledge and the ability to easily get more information as time goes on.  Once he starts playing for the Stars (they're probably going to keep him in Sarnia next season before calling him up), then not only will WP:GNG be satisfied, but by that point so will WP:NHOCKEY.  CycloneGU (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, subject meets WP:GNG. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to have enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, per Dolovis. I found this as well . Rlendog (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Only topic of articles is about draft event. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree that he meets the general notability guidelines? CycloneGU (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, !vote should be discounted under WP:PLENTY. CycloneGU (talk) 21:00, 19 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.