Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kody Bliss


 * 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 no consensus. Opinion is split as to whether the sources meet WP:GNG. I don't find the arguments on either side sufficiently persuasive to override the lack of a clear consensus. Having regard to WP:RELIST, a third relist would not be justified. Just Chilling (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Kody Bliss

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Outside of run-of-the-mill local coverage I'm not seeing significant coverage of this player, fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  16:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Eagles   24/7   (C)  16:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  Eagles   24/7   (C)  16:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete Fairly typical sports coverage of a college punter. Nothing to show that the GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON is met. If he'd won the Ray Guy award I'd say a case for notability could be made, but being one of 31 on a preseason watch list doesn't do it.Sandals1 (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Overall a non-notable punter that never had much of a career beyond college. He made all SEC a few times but that’s not enough to warrant an article.-- Rockchalk 717 18:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG based on extensive regional coverage he received as the leading punter in the SEC while playing at Auburn. Over 1,000 hits on Newspapers.com.  A few examples of the coverage include: (1) this from Gannett News Service, (2) this from The Decatur Daily, (3) this and (4) this from The Tennessean, (5) this and (6) this from The Anniston Star, (7) this from The Montgomery Advertiser. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I see a clear pass of WP:GNG from the coverage of his college career.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep based on the sources presented and the awards that Bliss won in his time at AU. I think it's pretty reasonable to say he passes the GNG. Nole  (chat·edits) 14:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's research and sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not seeing that he won any notable awards and most of the coverage is typical of what a starter at any SEC school would receive. He was never even first team all-conference so I don't believe the above comment "as the leading punter in the SEC". Papaursa (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * He was first team in 2005 and second team in 2006. Nole  (chat·edits) 06:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Routine coverage for a college punter and most of the in-depth coverage is from team-centric blogs or local coverage. Also I wouldn't consider being named all-conference a major award, if it were the Ray Guy Award or a consensus All-American it would be a much different story. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG - Tim D. Williamson yak-yak


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.