Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacquil Taylor


 * 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) 01:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Jacquil Taylor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I had initially tagged this for A7, but it has been persistently removed by a third editor.

Honestly this article subject categorically fails WP:NCOLLATH:
 * 1) He has not won a national award or set a major D1 record.
 * 2) He has not been inducted into the college basketball hall of fame.
 * 3) He has not gained national media attention as an individual (see below for a more thorough discussion of this)

More generally, there are virtually no sources on this college basketball player, and none that are both reliable and provide significant coverage. Simply from a search engine test, we can see that 93 ghits is not promising, especially not for a college basketball player today, and definitely not for someone with more than a season under his belt. Because there are so very few, it was possible to review all of them very rapidly. Nothing in these provide evidence of the national media attention that NCOLLATH requires. Everything is either routine coverage or local coverage (and even that is sparse, and generally not reliable).

I'd be fine with this closed as a speedy (i.e., without the preclusive effect of AfD in case there's some good reason to have an article on this subject that's eluded my analysis), because the mere statement that he plays for Purdue is not a claim of significance sufficient to meet the requirements set out in A7, but this isn't going to get reviewed by anybody so long as the speedy tag keeps getting removed. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * KeepNeutral Delete: I've added some citations and additional claims. Poor writing since I don't know anything whatsoever about basketball but the amount of writing on this allows the player to meet WP:GNG. It's still very borderline on GNG though - some coverage that's specific to him (versus events) but relatively short. Too few sources with not enough significant coverage to meet GNG or NCOLLATH. Revised opinion due to original opinion founded based on my work adding to the article rather than the actual subject—in the end it's just not a notable subject. Appable (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC) revised to delete Appable (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ... all of which is routine coverage and duplicative reports of the same event. There's nothing notable about this fellow at this time. It's just too soon for him to have an article. Maybe he'll be better in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not meet the above criteria, which were developed to address exactly this issue.--Rpclod (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  15:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  15:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete He's the 11th man on the team, for chrissakes. Fails GNG. The few sources that are available are purely local and not national. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 09:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH. Rikster2 (talk) 12:48, 26 February 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.