Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Humphrey

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. I see a consensus here among participants to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Humphrey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Draftify as I am struggling to find much of any in-depth coverage of the subject, failing WP:GNG. Despite the WP:REFBOMB, everything that comes up is basic coverage of either his college commitment (or de-commitment) or his transfer to another school, with some quotes and stats sprinkled in. This is what we would call "routine transactional announcements" in other sports. JTtheOG (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Georgia (country), and Texas. JTtheOG (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears be coverage with real depth. E.g., (1) part one/part two, (2) part one/part two, and (3) this. Cbl62 (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I was pinged by the article creator, but I was already planning on participating). Cbl62's coverage looks sufficient. Also, I don't buy the "routine" argument – if someone receives SIGCOV for e.g. transferring, then that's SIGCOV in accordance with GNG, especially if it's national-level coverage like we have here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I personally don't think he should be notable enough for Wikipedia - the sources presented are all essentially "he transferred, then he didn't" and are arguably primary, and I only see one source which goes into how he played as opposed to where he signed and it's local, but the sources above go into enough detail about him that it's hard to argue they don't pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with the coverage shown by Cbl62 and the one already in the article. Please note that the locality of the sources have no relevance to the subjects notability. Alvaldi (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage from Cbl62 appears to be sufficient enough to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Possibly Moved: We're starting to see many many articles likes this.. Where many are half finished of players transferring around.. After seeing a few pages and this one included, it reminded me of the New York Yankees minor league players page. My suggestion is make a new page list for these players similar to the Yankee example.Yeahimaboss413 (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to thank you guys for motivating me in creating a page for players..

My sandbox is also an example, of what we should possibly do. In these instances. User:Yeahimaboss413/sandbox67

Yeahimaboss413 (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2024 (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.