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. (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 13:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Beaulieu[edit]

Nathan Beaulieu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Did not win a major award in the QMJHL. He was nominated. Shows no signs of notabillity. USA1168 (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The extremely clear crystal ball will become a reality in about two weeks (on June 24th) as Nathan Beaulieu is certain to go in the 1st round of the 2011 NHL entry draft. This AfD should be postponed until after that event because once he is drafted in the 1st round this discussion becomes moot. That being said, this Beaulieu's notability is already established 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:
• Bruins 2011 Draft Watch featured article
• Dan Sallows featured article
• TelegraphJournal featured article
• The Hockey Writers featured article
• Fox News featured article #1
• Fox News featured article #2
• The Good Point featured article

The many published feature stories about Beaulieu pushes this article well over the GNG threshold required for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep : While may pass WP:GNG, WP:HOCKEY is more specific and more appropriate. AFAIK, this player does not (yet) satisfy any of the 7 criteria there: player fails WP:HOCKEY at this point in his career. WP:GNG takes precedence. Toddst1 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes the general notability guideline per coverage given by Dolovis. The fact that he fails a subject-specific notability guideline is irrelevant. --Anthem 16:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NHOCKEY is not meant to act in exclusion of other guidelines. Easily passes GNG, which is easily good enough for me. Resolute 16:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: NHOCKEY does not trump GNG, and while there are a few blogs posted up there, the Fox News articles more than prove to me that this subject passes GNG. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The athlete SNGs are not intended to exclude subjects who so clearly meet the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I considered nominating it for deletion myself until I looked for sources and expanded the article with no trouble. Considering his somewhat interesting story in the last few years (plays for the team that fired his father, and then father/son Memorial Cup champs), there was quite a bit of material out there even without including blogs. Canada Hky (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per above. Patken4 (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep as subject easily skates across the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 05:00, 12 June 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.