Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Gayle (American football)


 * 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. There seems to be clear consensus that sufficient sources have been found to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Hugsyrup (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

James Gayle (American football)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, as he has neither competed in a professional game nor garnered national, well-known collegiate awards.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Did a thorough search and while there's some coverage, all of it is brief/routine (such as transactional, or him injuring his shoulder). Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I'm not sure what kind of "thorough search" SportingFlyer did, but there's tons of significant coverage (i.e., neither "brief" nor WP:ROUTINE) to easily pass the WP:GNG bar.  Examples of significant national coverage include: (1) this feature story from the Los Angeles Times in 2013; (2) this two-part feature story from the Daily Press, Aug 2013; (3) this from the Daily Press in Jan 2013; (4) this from the Daily Press in No. 2010; (5) another two-parter from the Daily Press in Feb 2014; (6) this from the Daily Press in May 2014; (7) this and (8) this from The Roanoke Times; (9) this from The Virginian-Pilot;  (10) "Gayle's a Bear on Hokies' defense", Charleston (WV) Gazette, 9/20/14 (651 words, available at Newslibrary.com); (11) this from the Richmond Times-Dispatch; (12) this from The News and Advance; and (13) this from ESPN.com. Cbl62 (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw the ESPN one, that's simple coverage of a player going to the combine. All of his college football stories are from the state he played in, so not national, apart from the LA Times one. I don't know why specifically that was a LA Times article, since it was written by a local Daily Press reporter. Still fails WP:GRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH as a locally notable amateur athlete. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I frankly do not understand your approach here, which appears to be driven by a perennial hostility to articles on college football players. In this case, we have extensive coverage throughout the State of Mississippi Virginia (not just local coverage in Starkville Blacksburg) and on top of that there's significant coverage in major national publications like the Los Angeles Times (other side of the country) and ESPN.com.  Cbl62 (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He's a locally notable amateur athlete. I'm not sure what else to tell you, other sports wouldn't keep this article. The LA Times picked up a few Daily Press articles for online content it seems, I'm not exactly sure why. The ESPN article isn't about him as a college athlete, it's about his prospects in the NFL Draft, where he wasn't selected, making it routine draft coverage. I also don't see any articles from Mississippi here? SportingFlyer  T · C  01:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. The fact that you are "not exactly sure why" the Los Angeles Times (a national publication) published a feature story on him is irrelevant to the WP:GNG analysis. What is relevant under GNG is that the coverage exists and that it constitutes significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. We do not "discount" stories simply because we are "not exactly sure" why editors chose to significantly cover the topic.  And BTW, the soccer inclusion standards are quite low in comparison to those for American football.  Less then 1% of American football players receive this type of regional and national coverage, as reflected in my "delete" votes on three other pending college football AfDs where such coverage could not be found. Cbl62 (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On closer inspection, both the LA Times and the Daily Press were Tribune papers at the time of publication, and the LA Times article is actually a Daily Press article, the author is a Daily Press writer, which is local to Gayle's school. And association footy notability standards have nothing to do with this – I know American college players get articles written about them, but it would take quite a bit to get an amateur football player over the WP:GNG line, not just local coverage. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of where the story originated, the fact that the Los Angeles Times ran it is highly significant in a GNG analysis. It is rare indeed for the LA Times to pick up a story about a college athlete on the other side of the country. And I mentioned the very lax soccer standards only in response to your assertion that "other sports wouldn't keep this article". Cbl62 (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources discovered by CBL show a pass of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. subject passes WP:GNG per significant non trivial secondary coverage. A subject must only pass one measure of notability to be notable, and this one passes GNG. Lightburst (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW Keep Passes WP:GNG per above. James-the-Charizard (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2019 (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.