Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. J. Gaines


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ethically (Yours) 13:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

E. J. Gaines
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Player is non-notable via WP:NGRIDIRON. He is a college athlete, which is said in 2. as not being notable in itself, and the article gives no other reason to support he is notable in another way. Jed 20012 (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jed 20012 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep a simple review of online sources shows that he clearly passes WP:GNG based on volume of coverage that is specific to his collegiate career and NFL prospects.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Easy Keep. He was a first-team All-SEC player.  In other words, the best cornerback in the best conference.  And there is abundant non-routine coverage of him in mainstream media sources.  Examples include ESPN profile, Washington Post, St. Louis Dispatch, Associated Press, Columbia Missourian, nfl.com, KOMU. Article does need some cleanup ("monster season"?) but not deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 9.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 08:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment "Best" conference? now that's opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not an SEC fan ... but SEC teams did win 7 straight national championships from 2006 to 2012 ... and 4 of the top 7 teams in the final AP Poll this year (Auburn, South Carolina, Missouri & Alabama) were from the SEC. As much as I'd like it to be otherwise, it's pretty hard to argue objectively that the SEC is not the dominant conference in college football. Cbl62 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They're top-heavy and bottom-weak.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Paul McDonald and Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep because I'm selfish, and I said so. Based on WP:NGRIDIRON principles, besides a handful of 2014 NFL Draft prospects who are notable due to national recognition or winning an award, all other articles should be deleted as well. So, in hindsight, you delete this one, you should delete 90% of them as well. So, how about we cut the conservative approach, and remove this article from the discussion of deletion. Also, you delete my work and I get angry. You won't like it when I'm angry… Canadalovesnd (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2014 (EST)
 * Comment Per WP:TIND, those pages do not have to be created right away; they can wait until the players become notable under WP:NGRIDIRON. Perhaps it was just there were things missing from the article when I first saw it, which meant to me at first the article didn't meet WP:BURDEN. So please think of WP:GF; Thanks. Jed 20012 (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep However a lot of the copy/paste straight from his Missouri bio needs to be removed.--Yankees10 17:39, 10 January 2014 (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.