Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl Levy Mobley Jr.


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Darryl Levy Mobley Jr.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of this article does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON, our notability guideline for American football players, nor does he meet GNG. I cannot find reliable secondary coverage, and he has only ever played college football. At best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. A college football player can qualify under WP:GNG if he has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Here, Mobley is a college freshman at Dartmouth.  The Dartmouth web site (e.g., here) is not independent of the subject, as he is the team's quarterback.  I am not finding significant coverage of the type required under GNG.  If others can point to such coverage, I am willing to reconsider.  Likewise, if he receives such coverage as his career progresses, my delete vote is without prejudice to re-creating the article at that time. Cbl62 (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable college football player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH, and lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources sufficient to satsify the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete aside from failing WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, I don't believe the discussion should have been relisted because WP:UNOPPOSED AFD discussions are really just an extended WP:PROD. In this case, WP:RELISTINGISEVIL.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 8 January 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.