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.
Comment : I personally think Colangelo is notable, but unfortunately he narrowly missed the first round, meaning criteria 5 is barely missed. If anyone can find other sources please add them.
Eternal ShadowTalk 00:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: I can't see any basis to conclude that the subject is notable (and wouldn't mind Eternal Shadow setting forth his reasoning that he is), and anything beyond that is a CRYSTAL violation, so deletion is the only option.
Ravenswing 05:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - He has enough coverage to meet GNG, which is not surprising for someone who was considered to have a good chance of being a first round pick. There are already two reliably sourced articles specifically about Colangelo in our article from the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe. I also found an article about him in
The Athletic, and article at
nhl.com, an article partially about him in
the Chicago Sun Times, plus 7 paragraphs in
this Hockey Writers article and an article about him
here (as well as
his own Hockey Writers article, although I think a lot of lower level prospects get this too). He also has an article about him in
New England Hockey Journal, although since it is behind a paywall I can't see how extensive it is. And he got a small amount of coverage in the Hockey News
here (plus a few one sentence updates elsewhere). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rlendog (
talk •
contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Tom Morris (
talk) 09:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per new sources, particularly in light of
WP:NEXIST.
FOARP (
talk) 14:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)reply
comment still fails the basic hockey notability..which is the basis of his notability. Article hasn't been updated to note new sources
Triggerbit (
talk) 07:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
The basis of his notability is GNG. The article can be updated with the additional sources if and when the article is kept.
Rlendog (
talk) 13:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
weak keep: Not many sources available,
QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 06:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Subject passes
WP:GNG and has potential to be expanded. A poorly written article is not grounds for deletion itself.
Flibirigit (
talk) 22:18, 20 November 2020 (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.