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 reached that the subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 17:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Jeff Atkins (American football)

Jeff Atkins (American football) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

Notability doesn't seem to be established for this player. There might be some coverage in certain publications, but a BEFORE search doesn't bring much up. Seems like it won't meet GNG Spf121188 ( talk) 15:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment, found with a quick search: [1] [2] [3] and [4]. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 16. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Reply to BeanieFan11. I still feel like a player like this should have continued coverage, outside of more local publications and the time period that he played. To me, this feels like it still doesn't meet GNG, to be honest. Not that I don't appreciate your input and searches, because I certainly do! This one just doesn't seem like it should have its own article space. Spf121188 ( talk) 16:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I see what you mean, but there is no guideline that I know of that excludes local coverage and I read in WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. BTW, I found a full page-length article on Atkins that was published in 2001, about a decade after his football career ended. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I understand what you're saying. I posted the PROD and opened this only because WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY also reads While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. It just seemed like a discussion here was necessary. But again, I do appreciate your searches! Spf121188 ( talk) 16:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete all the coverage is extremely local. That is not enough to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Locality of coverage is irrelevant. And do you really think full-page length articles are not SIGCOV? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Johnpacklambert: And how is UPI "extremely local"? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

BeanieFan11, UPI certainly isn't local, but the article seems to be about him being in drug rehab.. Doesn't seem super relevant. Spf121188 ( talk) 16:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Coverage is coverage. News sources picked it up, and that's WP:GNG being met. Anything further is personal preference of editors, which basically is WP:IDONTLIKEIT in disguise.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG with feature article coverage, including in a major regional daily, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. If the coverage were in a hyper-local, small-town newspaper, I could better understand the argument against the coverage ... but this is a major regional newspaper .. the Star-Telegram is one of the top 50 newspapers in the USA and No. 4 in Texas. See here. Cbl62 ( talk) 17:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment- I do recognize that the article is a featured one in a large newspaper, I just didn't feel as if the level of and quantity of articles was enough to pass GNG. Spf121188 ( talk) 17:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

In fairness to the nom, the article is a microstub sourced only to a database. It is not particularly encyclopedic as it stands and sorely needs expansion and TLC. Cbl62 ( talk) 17:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I expanded a bit, including some coverage from the Dallas Morning News, which are available at NewsLibrary.com. Cbl62 ( talk) 17:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep sources seem to pass WP:GNG to me.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Week Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 22:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Withdrawn. In light of sources being presented by Cbl62 and BeanieFan11, I think instead of deletion this article can be improved and the subject meets GNG. Spf121188 ( talk) 18:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Meets GNG per the above sources. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 02:06, 18 February 2022 (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.