Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaiah Reid

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 delete. The keep !votes all come down to an assertion that WP:NCOLLATH is met, but the points made by Onel5969 and Jay eyem suggest that it is not. I am therefore bound to discount all of the keep !votes as having no basis in policy. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Reid

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Soccer player who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Existing news coverage comes almost exclusively from local press and a primary source (his university's website). BlameRuiner (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets criterion 1 of WP:NCOLLATH and the coverage is sufficient to write a meaningful and readable biography.Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the award they won doesn't qualify for NCOLLATH, and they do not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:COLLATH for winning national award. Rylesbourne (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:COLLATH for winning national award. 2A00:23C7:E915:1201:E473:B71D:61AB:8F29 (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Keskkonnakaitse:, @Rylesbourne: and IP editor: Does the award qualify for NCOLLATH though? @Onel5969: says it does not. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Robby.is.on - short answer is no. If you look at the examples listed in the link in COLLATH, all those are seasonal awards, not individual game awards or tournament awards.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am not convinced that this individual meets WP:NCOLLATH; criteria 1 discusses national awards, but there is nothing comparable to what is listed at Template:College Football Awards; namely, I don't see anything in that template that discusses a "best offensive player for the NCAA tournament" equivalent (the closest being the Walter Payton Award, but I think this is for an entire season). Plus I don't think it's fair to extend inherent notability for these kinds of awards for college soccer without demonstrating that such winners result in significant coverage. I did a quick search for the individual and couldn't find much non-trivial or routine coverage, so I don't see how this guy passes WP:GNG either. Maybe he will someday, but not at the moment. Jay eyem (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG and NFOOTY Footy777 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GNG is all that matters here, and he does not meet it. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm seeing some coverage that looks like possible SIGCOV. See for example [1] [2] [3] and [4] (4 is school newspaper). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm so I was considering weakening my vote, and maybe still am, but I looked into the first link further and it seems to be the type of local paper (and journalist in particular) that regularly runs well-written, extremely in-depth profiles of high school athletes in the city. I know Reid isn't in high school, but I think a paper that produces 1300+-word articles on things like "No more middle school recruiting, say Rock Hill school officials" ought to be seriously considered in the context of "WP:LOCAL boy makes it big" hype. The non-Rock Hill Herald article isn't SIGCOV, and obviously student newspapers never count towards notability. JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2022 (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.