Deletion of Kenneth Walker III

Comment: The ''Richmond Standard'' sources are short game recaps of a hometown native, whose length makes it |routine coverage
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: I read the  intro again in view of the conversation here.  Is states "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."  LA Times has a daily circulation of 650,000+.  As a contrast, the Chillicothe Gazette has a circulation of about 15,000 (picked random small town newspaper with wikipedia article - here for Chillicothe, Ohio).  Even if of local interest, a subject featured in the LA Times would make the subject far more famous than in the Chillicothe Gazette.  The teams, games, and players of a Power Five conference school is far more important than a Ohio Regional Campus Conference school.  Likewise, the general popularity of UCLA and its sports teams is far greater than the Ohio University – Chillicothe's sports teams and this flows down to the athletes of those teams.  Even just thinking about the concept of something being "worthy of notice", this will slant towards major population centers.  All this considered, I think that also favors keeping (though still not moving from weak keep above because I would like to see a greater number of sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: A dedicated piece in the LA Times would normally qualify in my book. But since it's within the geographical area of UCLA (and even has a column dedicated to UCLA sports) I'd say the Times is not entirely |independent here, so that knocks it down a few notches. This column would never be written if Walker played for, say, Notre Dame. Perhaps it'd be written in the ''South Bend Tribune'', in which case we'd be disregarding it. All the other sources are either routine or local
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IS)

Comment: starting FBS Division NCAA wide receivers normally get enough coverage that is far beyond , such as those listed in the article and in this AFD. Many of these are well past the "sports scores" requirement given in  and therefore are .  Subject passes  easily
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:ROUTINE||WP:NOTROUTINE||WP:GNG)

Comment: Passes  with significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Masem's contention that the coverage is  is baseless.  The coverage here includes feature articles in major news outlets that are the antithesis of routine coverage. Such coverage includes http://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/la-sp-ucla-kenneth-walker-20160907-snap-story.html this from the ''Los Angeles Times'' (the fourth largest newspaper in the US) which provides factual background on his childhood and his track career and provides a solid basis to construct a decent article. https://www.ocregister.com/2012/09/27/walkers-path-to-ucla-had-some-sharp-turns/ Here is another feature story from a major metropolitan daily providing depth of coverage. With in depth feature stories like these, I'm not sure how/why  would be a concern
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ROUTINE||WP:WHYN)