Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adin Ross

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adin Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not clear why this person is notable, range of sources neither appear reliable nor offer significant coverage, the "football career". JAYFAX (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JAYFAX (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources used are all non-RS, I can't find much of anything else otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, California, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources present in article do not demonstrate notability, but searching finds The Michigan Daily, USA Today, US Weekly (despite article title, contains significant coverage of Adin), Dot Esports. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 23:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Jayfax and Oaktree, did you even look at the talk page before making this AfD? Also, the sources Pbrks cited prove he meets WP:GNG. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There's also this lengthy article from reliable outlet Complex about the subject at hand that was present in the article before, which definitely meets WP:SIGCOV. I stand by my Keep vote. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. Naue7 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep can pass WP:GNG. ZEP55 (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2022 (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.