Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonah Hodges


 * 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (I copied the list of references provided here by to the article talk page, and added one of them to the article.) (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 08:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Jonah Hodges

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

College football player who does not meet the notability standards for college athletes, football players, or biographies in general. Deleted per WP:PROD, undeleted at WP:REFUND per a request from an IP editor but not subsequently improved. -- Finngall  talk  17:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I suspect he would have become notable had he not broken his collarbone and lost a season, but that's all speculation. As it stands now, I could find no significant coverage independent of the team in reliable sources. Sources definitely talked about him quite a bit, but it was always in connection with the team, and they were discussing other players at well. I searched for a bio piece on him by major newspapers, but I came up empty-handed. ~ RobTalk 20:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that a source also discusses other players does not render it insignificant See WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Cbl62 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, "independent of the team" means that we don't rely on coverage published by the team or university for which he plays. Thus, we don't rely on team press releases or, in general, articles published in university-published student newspapers. But coverage in editorially independent daily newspapers is considered to be "independent of the team". Cbl62 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. WP:ROUTINE links directly to WP:NOTNEWS, which is about newspapers, not a team press release. It's routine coverage for a newspaper to just say "so-and-so had a good game and here were his stats". This is coverage that all athletes get, notable or not, when they have a few good games over their career. They don't have to be the focus of the article, correct, but there has to be some substance above their name and stats, in my opinion. In any event, I'm changing my vote to weak keep based mostly on 4, 9, 10, and 11 which you posted below. Maybe 3 and 5 as well. I see the rest as pretty much routine coverage. ~ RobTalk 04:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * GNG is not a precise science, but it looks like we end up reaching the same conclusion. Thanks for keeping an open mind. Cbl62 (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article needs improvement, but the subject is notable. Playing for a Division I FCS team, he rushed for more than 1,200 yards in 2014, including a school record 275 yards in a single game, and 1,757 all-purpose yards. He broke his collarbone in Sept. 2015 and missed the bulk of the 2015 season but will be back in the fall of 2016. See here (Hodges back to full health as of March 2016).  He passes WP:GNG as he has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. The coverage goes beyond WP:ROUTINE passing references in game coverage.  See, e.g., (1) "Jonah Hodges earns first-team all-PFL honor", Santa Cruz Sentinel, Dec. 5, 2014; (2) "Transfer from Cal is legitimate running back for San Diego", The Tribune, Nov. 22, 2014; (3) "Hodges shifty in open space for Toreros", The San Diego Union-Tribune, Sep. 12, 2014; (4) "RB Jonah Hodges tears it up for Toreros", Santa Cruz Sentinel, Sep. 7, 2014; (5) "Hodges boosts Toreros to victory", The San Diego Union Tribune, Oct. 11, 2014; (6) "Hodges carries San Diego past Stetson 31-23", USA Today, Oct. 11, 2014; (7) "USD Supersoph Rusher Leading Toreros Against Host Butler", Times of San Diego, Oct. 17, 2014; (8) "Jonah Hodges sets USD rushing mark in game", Santa Cruz Sentinel, Oct. 12, 2014; (9) "Toreros RB Jonah Hodges out at least 4 weeks'", San Diego Union Tribune, Sept. 6, 2015; (10) "Former Santa Cruz High running back Jonah Hodges transfers from Cal to San Diego", Santa Cruz Sentinel, Feb. 18, 2014 (available for fee on NewsLibrary.com); (11) "SC's Hodges a do-it-all star", Santa Cruz Sentinel, Oct. 21, 2011.  Cbl62 (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup per Cbl62's research. Good job.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm willing to withdraw the nom provided these sources get incorporated into the article. Thanks.  -- Finngall   talk  14:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are satisfied that WP:GNG is met, then a withdrawal is appropriate. However, I don't think you should impose a condition that one of your fellow Wikipedia volunteers must dedicate loads of his/her time to immediately re-write the article to incorporate the new sources. Cbl62 (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed the purpose of this discussion should be "is the subject notable" and not necessarily how to edit the content of the article. Granted, sometimes editing for content comes up in discussions because sometimes the content is so poorly written that deletion is the best course--but that is far from the case here.  The question is, "should the article be deleted" and the reason given is that the subject did not appear to meet notability standards.  Once those standards are met, keeping is the proper step.  Enthusiastic editors for the topic can then jump in and add the material in a way that makes sense.  There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's research and sources. I also want to say that I agree with Cbl62 that "independent sources" means sources that are independently published, not sources that are "independent" in terms of content relative to the subject at hand (which could be difficult to determine and could be endlessly argued, anyways). Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:01, 20 May 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.