Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Scott (quarterback)

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. Consensus was that the subject meets GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Scott (quarterback)[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:NGRIDIRON, as only making two practice squads. Article is close to WP:G11, with significant sock contributions. Sources are mostly not WP:SIGCOV. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - despite the persistent sockpuppetry, this subject appears to pass GNG. See "For one day, Occidental quarterback Bryan Scott gets to perform like a Division I player at USC's pro day" and "Former Occidental Quarterback Bryan Scott making most of opportunity with Rams" from The Los Angeles Times and "Whicker: Occidental College has a dominant QB in Bryan Scott" from The Los Angeles Daily News. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject appears to pass GNG. In addition to the links shared above, please see "Occcidental QB Scott leads Team USA to gold" and "NFL Spring League success kickstarts Bryan Scott's NFL dreams". Please note that I have been asked by Mr Scott to comment and propose certain edits on his behalf. Also, please note that User:Bored&Broke is an account related to Mr Scott editing on his behalf - he wasn't aware of the disclosure policies and has been asked to refrain from making any further edits to Wikipedia. Hillster (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am inclined to agree with Eagles247. I also disagree that it is "close to G11" (but the page may have been improved since then). Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Punish the sock. But not the article, as it meets GNG. 2603:7000:2143:8500:9C8C:CDC1:69E8:916D (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2021 (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.