- 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kyle Reed ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I last nominated this article for deletion in 2011, resulting in no consensus. Revisiting this article now, I still believe this article fails to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Reed doesn't meet the four core criteria of NCOLLATH, and the provided articles about Reed in the "further reading" section are little more than WP:ROUTINE coverage from local newspapers. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 21:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:NCOLLATH is an inclusive standard, not an exclusive one. Starting quarterbacks at Division I FBS programs commonly have articles if they pass WP:GNG. At the prior AfD, some 20 articles were presented where Reed was the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable media outlets. These are articles written about Reed that far surpass passing mentions in game coverage or mere "Transactions" announcements of the sort considered to be WP:ROUTINE. SonofCbl ( talk) 10:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- So the general notability guideline overrides the sports notability guideline, due to the extensive coverage about Reed from local news sources? I can accept that argument, if there's a consensus in this discussion. The quarterback is usually the "face of the program" for D1 FBS teams, so he usually becomes the subject of most news coverage unless a position player is particularly exceptional. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 18:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Delete local coverage should be underweighed. There is not enough coverage to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- delete The coverage looks like routine sports reporting to me. I see nothing that every Division 1 QB wouldn't have and don't believe WP:NFOOTBALL makes all such players notable. Don't see any other notability standard is met. Sandals1 ( talk) 15:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Delete The coverage is local and consists of routine sports reporting. There's no indication that WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON is met. Papaursa ( talk) 22:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kyle Reed ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I last nominated this article for deletion in 2011, resulting in no consensus. Revisiting this article now, I still believe this article fails to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Reed doesn't meet the four core criteria of NCOLLATH, and the provided articles about Reed in the "further reading" section are little more than WP:ROUTINE coverage from local newspapers. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 21:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:NCOLLATH is an inclusive standard, not an exclusive one. Starting quarterbacks at Division I FBS programs commonly have articles if they pass WP:GNG. At the prior AfD, some 20 articles were presented where Reed was the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable media outlets. These are articles written about Reed that far surpass passing mentions in game coverage or mere "Transactions" announcements of the sort considered to be WP:ROUTINE. SonofCbl ( talk) 10:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- So the general notability guideline overrides the sports notability guideline, due to the extensive coverage about Reed from local news sources? I can accept that argument, if there's a consensus in this discussion. The quarterback is usually the "face of the program" for D1 FBS teams, so he usually becomes the subject of most news coverage unless a position player is particularly exceptional. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 18:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Delete local coverage should be underweighed. There is not enough coverage to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- delete The coverage looks like routine sports reporting to me. I see nothing that every Division 1 QB wouldn't have and don't believe WP:NFOOTBALL makes all such players notable. Don't see any other notability standard is met. Sandals1 ( talk) 15:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Delete The coverage is local and consists of routine sports reporting. There's no indication that WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON is met. Papaursa ( talk) 22:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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.