Tavon Rooks: Subject was not notable enough in a previous AfD in June 2023, and I'm not sure why an article now should be warranted.  I waited a couple of months to see how the article would evolve, but alas nothing appears to have changed since then.  Lacks significant coverage from reliable sources per WP:SIGCOV .  CycloneYoris talk!  03:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football .  CycloneYoris talk!  03:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes GNG.  [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] This is the only NFL draftee from the past 10 years whose article was deleted.  I don't really think this should have been deleted in the first place.  ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 05:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'm still of the opinion from the last AFD that there is enough coverage for notability (worth noting that one of the "delete" !votes there was an intentional revenge !vote by a user since interaction banned; not sure if that would have had any impact had it not occurred as it would have been an even weaker 1k-2d discussion); also relevant that this would be the only draft pick from the last 10 years missing an article.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG.  Rlendog ( talk ) 15:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not sure what has changed since the most recent AfD, as the same below-par sources are being presented.  Being drafted into the NFL does not make someone inherently notable.  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Let'srun : May I ask how you came across this discussion, considering in a span of three minutes you voted against me at both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historically significant college football games , which just so happen to be the two most recent AFDs I've voted at – especially considering how often this type of thing has happened?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Let'srun : You're actively editing elsewhere.  Why aren't you answering this, just like you were unable to answer similar queries here , here and here ?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Let'srun : Considering the G4 was declined, using the rationale that it's the same as what was previous deleted doesn't seem appropriate.  As someone who can see the deleted version, this is significantly different.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 10:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG.  Themanwithnowifi ( talk ) 15:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG with the sources now in the article.  Alvaldi ( talk ) 16:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Significantly different than the version that was deleted, hence the G4 decline.  Passes GNG and sigcov.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 10:03, 27 February 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.

Discussion outcome: keep