Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Hooper


 * 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.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Trevor Hooper

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Never played a professional game. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC) ...William 18:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:TOOSOON perhaps, since he is in the Bills' practice squad. But not now, and there's nothing out there that would get him past WP:GNG. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON and the potential to do so appears remote as his stint on the practice squad was five seasons ago.  Gong   show  23:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete It seems fairly evident that the subject is not noteworthy. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 01:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I am registering an initial "delete" !vote in this discussion, I am compelled to point out our inconsistent notability analysis across different sports and even within the sport of American football.  This is a much closer call than other editors have indicated.  I have seen other editors successfully stitch together a defense of similar subjects' notability with far less material than exists for this subject.  Because the subject did not win a major national award, he is not entitled to a presumption of notasbility per WP:NCOLLATH; likewise, he never played in an NFL regular season game per WP:NGRIDIRON.  Notability of the subject must be determined under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG.  A Google News Archive search ("Trevor Hooper" Stanford) reveals 100+ hits in which the subject is specifically mentioned in the context of his college football career, including mentions in the regional and national sports media.  None, however, is a feature article about Hooper specifically, and all appear to be either routine post-game or transactional coverage that do not support the subject's notability per WP:GNG.  A general Google search likewise shows almost 100 hits (with some overlap with the Google News Archive search), and some in-depth coverage of the subjectbut all of the in-depth coverage appears to occur in sources that are either discounted college sports blog sites (Scout.com, recruiting sites, etc.) or are not independent of the subject (Stanford athletic department, etc.).  If anyone can find even one or two in-depth sources that I have overlooked, I will reconsider my !vote.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to re-create should subject pass notability threshhold.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Dirtlawyer on this one.  While college players can qualify under WP:GNG even if they never play in the NFL, I am not finding sufficient non-trivial coverage of Hooper to pass GNG.  Mostly passing references in game/team coverage.  The best I'm finding is a brief announcement in a San Jose paper that Hooper signed with Stanford: .  Also a one-sentence blurb from a Buffalo newspaper on his signing with the Bills: .  Also a 200-word piece from the San Jose paper on his having a good game against UCLA: .  Close call, but not enough IMO to satisfy GNG.  Willing to reconsider if additional sources are found.  Cbl62 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2013 (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.