Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle York (American football)

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) Jack Frost (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle York (American football)[edit]

[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)

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like high-hanging fruit as far as major college football players go. Starting QB of a SEC school, several sources cited in the article, and more that come up in a Google search for him. Seems to have enough independent, reliable coverage, and it's definitely a name Mississippi State fans will recognize – not some obscure nobody. Jhn31 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like the existing coverage passes WP:GNG, both in the article and online searches. Typically we find that starting quarterbacks of SEC teams generate enough press to pass the general notability guideline, and this does not seem to be an exception even though he only started a handful of games. Often backup quarterbacks will also generate the press, so this would be a typical result. While I grant that the coverage is less than a regular starting SEC QB, the coverage is still there and enough to pass.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep -- I'm not terribly impressed by the sources in the article right now. I wayback'd a couple dead links and nothing in there is really great, but Paul/Jhn are right that usually a starting SEC quarterback is notable. Maybe someone who's better at searching newspapers from that time could find something? Nole (chat·edits) 14:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cbl62: any chance you can do a newspapers.com search? Nole (chat·edits) 17:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found this, this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Four feature articles clearly are WP:NOTROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's excellent. Striking the "weak" from my comment, this should pass GNG. Nole (chat·edits) 18:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is no inherent notability for SEC QBs and I'm not seeing much outside routine beat reporting in terms of coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've done some looking but can't find anything outside of routine game reporting on him, apart from maybe the Baptist newsletter already in the article. Apart from maybe that one, I don't think any of the other references currently in the article pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has the sources to meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The sources appear to clear the WP:GNG bar here, albeit barely. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming sources actually meet WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:31, 28 June 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.