Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Judge

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. While the rationales for article retention include "weak" and "modest", overall consensus is nevertheless for the article to be retained. A notion for moving the article to draft namespace was presented, but nobody else concurred with this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Judge[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON and is very thin on sources. Donnie Park (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very very weak keep. As a college player, the appropriate notability guideline is WP:NCOLLATH; he does have a little coverage independent of the team, as a captain/starting linebacker, that could put him over the bar. That said, the article needs to be updated (he has already played his final year) and rewritten to remove excessive personal details. ansh 666 19:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Modest keep. Since it isn't known whether he will someday play in the NFL, keep for now. Revisit the issue later on. --Oskinet (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (or move to draft) - Probably an even weaker keep vote than Ansh666, but keep nonetheless. Realizing that Wikipedia is not WP:CRYSTAL, the likelihood of him being an NFL player is pretty good based on the coverage here. Of course we will know more in a month which is why moving to draft is a good option. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 28 March 2017 (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.