Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tay Martin


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)  Frank  Anchor  19:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Tay Martin

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football,  and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes the general notability guideline with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see the following articles that discuss Martin "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content,": this from Arizona Republic; this from The Spokesman-Review; this from Sports Illustrated; this from The Oklahoman; this from The Spokesman-Review; this from The Seattle Times; and numerous others you can find through a quick google search. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per BeanieFan11. This seems to pass general notability guidelines. SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 18:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes GNG. Article needs expansion however. There should be enough information in the sources provided to expand.-- Rockchalk 717 22:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Easy GNG pass. GNG is our criteria for notability, not the nominator's opinion of whether those sources "signify importance."Rlendog (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems clear at this point, but this is an easy keep. BeanieFan11's sources more than show notability per WP:GNG and the nom's rationale is no longer applicable due to these sources, so at this point there's no valid argument that I can see for deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 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.