Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ty Rattie


 * 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 23:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ty Rattie

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject of article has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - More than enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the coverage is not about him personally, only in context of prospects, joining the team -- routine coverage. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 21:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They're all about him. Several are from before he was even drafted, e.g.,, a full article just about Rattie. Rlendog (talk) 22:02, 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 22:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The many published feature stories about Rattie pushes this article over the GNG threshold required for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as he passes WP:GNG as demonstrated by the significant and non-routine coverage he has received in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including:
 * The Calgary Herald feature article
 * Ottawa Citizen feature article
 * Matchsticks and Gasoline feature profile
 * The Hockey Writers feature profile
 * Sandy Post feature article
 * The Portland Tribune feature article
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per above cmts- plenty of sources, he was one of the potential first rounders who slipped into the top second round. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes notability requirements as shown from links provided above.--EdwardZhao (talk) 18:27, 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.