Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Copeland

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Copeland

[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)

Nothing but routine sports coverage. Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have plenty of significant sources on him from his college career, including these from the The Athletic, The Baltimore Sun and The News-Press. I've added these and others to the article. Alvaldi (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A feature article in The Athletic is not routine, and neither are the Baltimore Sun and Gainesville Sun pieces Alvadi added. Hatman31 (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above sources. Projected to be a 2023 NFL Draft pick too. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep sources pass WP:GNG, are WP:NOTROUTINE, and subject has shown WP:IMPACT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see at least three significant, independent, reliable sources meeting Wikipedia:GNG Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG due to having multiple articles dedicated to him.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Clearly passes GNG. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my own review, I find that the article subject meets WP:GNG, WP:NATHLETE, and WP:NCOLLATH via WP:SIGCOV in independent secondary WP:RS. The coverage of the subject is beyond WP:ROUTINE and meets the significant threshold to sufficiently indicate WP:NOTABILITY via SIGCOV criteria. Furthermore, notability is demonstrated in satisfying WP:NCOLLATH with sufficient notability through GNG. WP:NATHLETE is also met by subject, since the degree of coverage by reliable independent secondary sources exceeds WP:ROUTINE. An article on a non-notable subject would be eligible for deletion under GNG requirements, however, this subject passes WP:NATHLETE to sufficiently demonstrate notability according to WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, I find that GNG and NCOLLATH are satisfied as well, as demonstrated by the in depth reliable secondary source coverage of the subject which additionally shows WP:IMPACT. I would be more inclined to suggest deletion if the subject didn’t have demonstrable notability via lack of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV or failing WP:GNG or NATHLETE. Since these criteria are met, though, I see a strong policy-based rationale for inclusion. Deletion could be considered if NCOLLATH wasn’t met (which would also weaken the GNG case), but in this case the relevant notability guidelines are passed and the article should not be eligible for deletion. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2023 (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.