Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick VanderLaan (2nd nomination)
Three reasons why I am voting weak keep this time, rather that delete as last time.  First, technically the article does just squeak by  criteria with the subject leading the CBA in a major statistical category (rebounding).  Second, the article is very well-written with good references.  While that alone does not show notability, the significant number of authoritative references in conjunction with the borderline notability pushes the article into the keep zone.  Third, the author specifically contacted me and I voted delete during the first afd. Not an argument for notability, but clearly shows that the author is not trying to sneak a non-notable subject back into WP
— User:Rpclod, 12:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NHOOPS (Wikipedia:Notability)