Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martavious Odoms

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. Courcelles (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martavious Odoms[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable college wide receiver who did not play at professional level, received no major college awards (not even first- or second-team all-conference recognition), and did not rank among the top 50 NCAA receivers in any given year. He showed a lot of promise as a freshman (when the article was created) but the promise never materialized. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. The article relies principally on the university web profile (not independent) and an ESPN profile (something every college player has). The only source cited that actually focuses on Odoms is from AnnArbor.com and was a routine injury announcement. Cbl62 (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale and comments. Does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards) or professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in an NFL or CFL regular season game). There is insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article is written, I agree with the nominator. Sources do not seem to indicate notability to me. The news search didn't look promising, mostly fan sites or non-third-party Michigan sites. "Could have been notable" does not equate to "notable" --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and above users article is non-notable. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2015 (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.