Tavon Rooks: Was unable to find WP:SIGCOV .  Contested PROD.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 23:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 23:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .  So here's what I found: an arguably SIGCOV piece from the KC Star here on a heart attack he suffered in training camp (the Sporting News also ran a story on it); then there's several pieces from Chiefs Digest ( 1 2 ) – I think this could be considered reliable because it seems they do have a staff and some of their stories are reprinted in The Topeka Capital-Journal , a newspaper that's definitely a reliable source; the Capital-Journal also has a brief piece on him here ; several brief pieces from SB Nation : 1 2 ; and, looking at ProQuest I see a piece that looks highly likely to be SIGCOV, although it only gives me an abstract: Tavon rooks thought draft call was a prank, but he's ready to 'compete' – Times-Picayune (and several other potentially SIGCOV pieces from that paper: 1 2 ).  So in all, for a guy who was selected in a recent (2014) NFL Draft, I do think we have enough for a weak keep, although I admit I expected to find more coverage than this.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 00:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BeanieFan11 Two of the Times-Picayune stories can be read here [16] [17] .  Alvaldi ( talk ) 10:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are weaker than I expected.  I'm at very weak keep now.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Thinking about this, still at "weak keep." [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and BIO.  Two sources in article are short routine sports news pieces about draffs and one about a health issue.  The two refs mentioned above that are not in the article are also mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing wth subject directly and indepth from IS RS.  WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 18:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would disagree that all the sources are "short routine sports news pieces"; for example, this one is actually 2,000 words on him.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do we have any evidence that this isn't just a niche group-blog?  Or even a one-man SPS?  The Twitter link on the website goes straight to the personal account of "Matt Derrick".  JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay : According to this it is affiliated with The Topeka Capital-Journal .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 21:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't mean it has any editorial oversight by real journalists...it sounds more like one of the former beat writers just also wrote for TCJ.  Without any indication of editorial policy it should be treated as SPS.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay : It sounds like they've got professional journalists, see for example this writer who also worked for SI and the Washington Times and this one for the Times-Picayune , The Kansas City Star and Associated Press .  There's an article here titled "Topeka Capital-Journal, ChiefsDigest.com join forces" but its paywalled.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That does not say Derrick worked for SI or WT, it just says "as seen in".  His LinkedIn shows he only worked as a media content marketer/PR person before joining ChiefsDigest.  While Teope is a legit journalist, according to the CJOnline article the partnership with TCJ only consisted of CD content being accessible from CJO and "available for publication" in TCJ, there is no indication it was under editorial supervision from TCJ.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well even if it is not under supervision, the story under discussion was written by Teope so surely that one could be considered reliable, no?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It would still fall under SPS, and per BLPSPS even expert SPS published in conjunction with news orgs cannot be used on BLPs if they aren't under the newspaper's editorial control: Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay : Though, if the newspaper is reprinting the blog article on their website (as legit articles and not under a blog category), would that still make it count as a SPS?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 02:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This above source in question [18] also an interview with the subject.  // Timothy :: talk 22:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can't discount sources solely because they have quotes – most sports reporting has that!  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I calculated that out of 2,000 words in that news article on him, 1,174 is not quotes.  You most certainly cannot simply dismiss such coverage as being an "interview."  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - ultimately I'm not sold on the RS status of ChiefsDigest , and without that source's depth of coverage on the subject we don't come anywhere close meeting notability guidelines.  signed, Rosguill talk 01:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Therapyisgood ( talk ) 03:22, 2 June 2023 (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: delete