Deletion of Keeley Dorsey

Comment: not notable. Simply having being written about in a newspaper doesn't necessarily means a noteworthy achievement, under  and "multiple independent non-trivial published works" such as a newspaper which circulated abou ta million copies, I would also qualify, and that would be for winning some science competitions in high school, and all sorts of people like car crash victims, assault victims, and small business owners in dispute with the city council, etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: per . The sports clauses have absolutely nothing to do with whether this article meets the BIO criteria or not.  There are probalby many other WP articles about people notable on their own right, who played college sports, and they aren't (nor should they be) held to the sports standard either.  Just because the notability came as a result of the sport, it doesn't automatically void the first part of the BIO criteria
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I would probably not have taken the time to write this article, but someone did.  There are several other keep voters.  That implies there may be even more people out there who may want to read about him.  Also, some commentors have noted that his school is not one of the famous football schools.  In a way, that may make him all the more notable as one of the few football players from that school to ever receive such wide-spread media attention.  He passes  and Wikipedia is not paper, so there is no harm in having the article and no compelling reason to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: newspaper articles are mainly about this person's death, and I don't see any source material that could be used to make this more than a few lines. It really is too bad what happened, but  the obituary column
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I agree that this appears to meet one point of : ''The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.'' Given the nature of this criterion, this would mean the article would clearly meet  and should be kept. However, the only reason why this person was the subject of a non-trivial work is because he died in an unusual circumstance (heatstroke is common, nowadays; but it is still newsworthy when it involves sports players). We should |ignore all rules as the criterion on  only works for this article because of his death, and his article has no merit otherwise. Besides, since the person has not made a name for himself at the college level, I doubt there is much expansion that can be done to the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:IAR||WP:BIO)

Comment: Unreal. if this guy really meets our notability guidelines I think that says more about our guidelines than his notability.  and delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)