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 delete. Seems like we don't have enough substantial sources here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tavares Bowens[edit]

Tavares Bowens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Appears to be a COI editor. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it passes WP:GNG? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt he would do so if referenced, no. The references you've provided above are more of the "local boy makes good" variety, which I don't take as a GNG pass. Considering the lack of big-time media coverage for anything below the NFL and top-flight NCAA programs, I'm leaning in that direction. Happy to be proven wrong, of course, but that's where I'm leaning pending more developments. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of those three reasons are necessarily reasons to delete the article. Do you think it passes WP:GNG? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 17:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment WikiOriginal-9 no it does not meet WP:GNG and clear WP:COI with author. --EC Racing (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI isn't necessarily a reason to delete the article. Also, you accidentally registered two delete votes. Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry WikiOriginal-9, edited from 2nd vote to "comment" --EC Racing (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2017 (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.