Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Hassin


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Jared Hassin

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NCOLLATH. BD2412 T 06:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  BD2412  T 06:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete . It also appears that most of the text of this article has been copied and pasted from his bio page on the Army sports website (1). How has this existed for 10+ years and not been caught yet? Ugh. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Switching to keep per the excellent rescue work performed by BeanieFan11. Meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 *  Delete Keep - Although I think this player may be notable (see articles ), the article as it exists currently is basically one big copyright violation, and it's probably best that it be deleted and started from scratch (WP:TNT) . Hatman31 (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * TNT has been applied and article restarted. Cbl62 (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, guess I'll change my vote then. Hatman31 (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 *  Delete Keep, this is just a copy and paste for someone who only played for 2 years in college and isn't really notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to keep as the article has been improved.Hey man im josh (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep but remove copyvio. Meets NBIO/GNG People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, see here (NYT), here, here, and here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plainly passes WP:GNG with the coverage cited above by BeanieFan11 ... including an in-depth feature story in the freaking New York Times. Also, I see that the copyvio has now been removed, so that is no longer a basis for deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * keep WP:GNG has been met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2022 (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.