Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jakorian Bennett

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. ✗plicit 14:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jakorian Bennett[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)

Contested draftification. Current sourcing is 3 routine sports coverage and a primary source. Should be in draft for development, but that was contested, so we are here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Alabama, and Maryland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No time to search now, but projected to be a 3rd-5th round draft pick, so extremely likely notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's a whole bunch of articles about him if you search Google News. They should have been included: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Jakorian+Bennett&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUj_rnmf_9AhX3F1kFHfl_AX0Q0pQJegQICxAB&biw=1920&bih=947&dpr=1. Even if he somehow fails GNG or Sigcov here, which I doubt, he'll have another article up within no time since he's going to get picked for the 2023 NFL Draft.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG, see for example PFN, Testudo Times, SI, The Diamondback, The Baltimore Sun, and others. And even if that wasn't enough, as KatoKungLee said, he is guaranteed to receive more when he gets drafted next month (with many sources projecting as high as the third round, Bennett is basically a lock). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if we reject a number of sources for being "bloggy" or "transactiony" there are still a number of feature articles that provide detail to meet the reuqirmeents of WP:GNG. They need to be incorporated into the article, but that's just editing issue and not a deletion issue. No problem with the nomination, because as-written the article doesn't look so good... but it's clearly a notable person.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Clearly passes GNG. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:39, 31 March 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.