From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Averell Spicer

Averell Spicer (  | 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)

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and more broadly WP:BIO for lack of coverage. LibStar ( talk) 01:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The first Los Angeles Times piece from 2004 ( here) has depth of coverage, but it's an article written when he was in high school, part of a series on "the Southland's top high school football players". It appears he showed great promise in high school and was a top recruit, but he sustained injuries in college and never quite made the grade at USC. Per WP:YOUNGATH, an in-depth profile from his high school playing career doesn't support a stand-alone article -- particularly where he didn't fulfill the promise when he got to the next level. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The second Los Angeles Times piece is an article seeking to answer the question of who would replace Sedrick Ellis, USC's star nose tackle (headline: "Trojans look for stopgap measures" to fill the hole at nose tackle). Spicer was one of the "stopgap" measures to replace Ellis and thus received some coverage. USC during the Pete Carroll years was one of the super-programs where even a backup (or "stopgap") nose tackle received some coverage, but the fact remains that Averell never made the cut (whether due to injury or whatever) and doesn't IMO warrant a stand-alone article. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:38, 25 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.