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. If the keepers had been able to find more than one single article they could have made a much stronger case for this subject passing the GNG. As it is, the deleters argue convincingly that he does not, and that he obviously does not pass NSPORTS either. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maika Polamalu (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)

Fails WP:GNG, playing college football is not notable and rugby league career fails WP:RLN. Mattlore (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- Per WP:GNG. Two sources I found are from the Capital Gazette and Baltimore Sun. The Gazette article could maybe be put down to routine coverage (it's about his retirement from American college football), but the Baltimore Sun one seems to comfortably meet GNG. He's clearly the subject of the article, although it's obvious that his family connections have contributed to his notability. I see why Matt nominated this article for deletion, but can't confidently say this fails GNG. -- Shudde ^talk 02:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:RLN and WP:NCOLLATH. I found some brief coverage about his decision to retire and then return, but that appears routine and wasn't sustained (all similar to the Capital Gazette article linked above). The Baltimore Sun story was clearly only written due to the family connections, and notability is not inherited. Even discounting that, a single regional piece on a college athlete does not meet WP:GNG, as this is not substantial coverage. ~ Rob^Talk 09:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I gotta go with a keeper here for WP:GNG. I'm finding some good coverage, although I'm not entirely sure why. It seems that he achieved significant press for injuries/etc. Ours is not to judge the reason behind the coverage, only to take a position of if it is there. This looks beyond the scope of passing mentions in the press to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Classic example of inherited notability. Clearly fails WP:NSPORTS, and the coverage only exists because he has a much more famous family relative rather than being notable in his own right. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question can you provide a specific example where the coverage only exists because of the more famous family relative, or at least explain how you came to that conclusion? It seems like conjecture to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the Baltimore Sun article linked above. I believe that's a very clear case of inherited notability, as they spend most of the article talking about his very notable family member. ~ Rob^Talk 13:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes and no. Yes, it's a human interest story because they are related, but they are also football players. And that one article doesn't negate the others found in a simple news search. It's not enough for me, but I can now see that it does have some weight.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2015 (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.