Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damian Copeland


 * 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 is that WP:GNG is met. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Damian Copeland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Players does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON standards. Player has not played in a professional NFL game. He wasn't a notable college player either.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 5.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 20:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  20:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  20:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  20:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom . Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 13:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG (Cbl62's linked sources below). I'm not very happy that the nominator didn't poke around to see some of these links before nominating. That said, it's hard to see why the subject has attracted so much individual coverage -- but that's not for me to judge in terms of inclusion.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 11:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable football player....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NGRIDIRON is an inclusionary standard.  A college football player can also survive if he passes either WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH.  Under prong 3 of NCOLLATH ("Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team"), Copeland arguably passes.  National media coverage includes: (1) this from USA Today, and (2) this from Fox News Sports.  Additional coverage factoring into a GNG analysis (significant coverage in multiple reliable sources) includes: (3)  this, and (4) this, both from The Courier-Journal, and (5) this, (6) this, and (7) this from the Bradenton Herald, (8) this from The Times-Picayune, (9) this and (10) this from the Lexington Herald-Leader, and (11) this from Evansville Courier & Press. There are also interviews (12) here from the Orlando Sentinel and (13) here from WLKY. Whether the analysis is done under NCOLLATH, prong 3, or GNG, the result is the same: Keep. Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  16:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources have been found to satisfy WP:GNG.  The USA Today article shows that he got attention for receiving a medical hardship exemption to gain an unusual sixth year of college eligibility.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2016 (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.