Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Roberson

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. Tone 20:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Roberson

[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)

Fails WP:NHOOPS. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've improved the article a bit and added more sources. Dammit_steve (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of singnificant coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources. The Tennessean and Nashville Post are OK with me, but I need maybe one more. I don't find SB Nation as a whole to be generally reliable. There's a lot of fan-type blogging there, but I make exceptions for some of their authors with substantial prior credentials. No indication that is worthy here. The CBS Sports coverage is fantasy sports related, and not that in-depth. He does not meet WP:NHOOPS either, but GNG does not require that.—Bagumba (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails to meet WP:NHOOPS. Coverage is from two Nashville (which is where Vanderbilt is located) newspapers and consists of typical local sports coverage--something pretty much every Division I starter would receive. I don't believe that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2019 (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.