Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Fuller

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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Fuller

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

delete per WP:NGRIDIRON does not meet notability requirements. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:GNG is notable at this time. Canadalovesnd 23:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This player has not met that threshold yet, when I reviewed [[1]] I did not see the awards listed that would have given him notability as an amateur athlete in college. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GNG does not require achievment of any awards. It is based on coverage in the media in general.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wasn't expecting to find the coverage that I actually found in the news. A simple web search returns many articles in the news from third party reliable sources about his college football playing. That, in my opinion, is more than enough to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Coverage is just the usual sports reporting.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Washington Post and NBC Sports articles are considerably more than just the "usual reporting" in my opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the second one is doing is reporting an injury. Players get injured all the time. That shouldn't be used to establish notability.--Yankees10 22:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, players do get injured all the time. Not every player gets coverage for their injury--certainly not in a feature article such as that one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a great amount of sources, but he is a potential first round draft pick in upcoming draft. That alone makes him notable.--Yankees10 22:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So could I. Until that happens you don't have that notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many paths to notability. See WP:ABELINCOLN for a discussion on that if you like.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2014 (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.