Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaylon Reed


 * 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. Tone 11:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Jaylon Reed

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

College player who does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I only see incidental statistical-type reports in the news and no feature articles. There is a Jaylon Redd who played for the Oregon Ducks that is encroaching on traditional searches, but I see nothing standing out.  Would reconsider if good sources were presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable amateur player. Sources are mostly routine stat and recruiting coverage. Ostealthy (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this person quite clearly fails Notability_(sports) as he has not yet played any major tournaments. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The nom ignores the fact that WP:NGRIDIRON is an inclusive standard and WP:GNG must also be considered. Here, however, the only coverage cited from reliable, independent sources consists of a short piece by Annie Costabile, announcing that Reed signed with Miss. St. The piece is cited twice in the article, once as it originally appeared in the Clarion Ledger and then as it was picked up by USA Today. Despite being picked up elsewhere, it remains one piece. Not enough presented here to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 14:42, 28 November 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.