Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damian Copeland

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. Consensus is that

WP:GNG is met. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Damian Copeland

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Players does not meet

WP:NGRIDIRON

standards. Player has not played in a professional NFL game. He wasn't a notable college player either.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 20:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
Talk • Work 13:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
- Keep per
  Talk • Work 11:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete Not notable football player....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
The Times-Picayune, (9) this and (10) this from the Lexington Herald-Leader, and (11) this from Evansville Courier & Press. There are also interviews (12) here from the Orlando Sentinel and (13) here from WLKY. Whether the analysis is done under NCOLLATH, prong 3, or GNG, the result is the same: Keep. Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been found to satisfy WP:GNG. The USA Today article shows that he got attention for receiving a medical hardship exemption to gain an unusual sixth year of college eligibility. Unscintillating (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes
WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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.