Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dillon Dougherty
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 deleteconsensus is that the article is notable, however sourcing concerns have not been addressed. This may be undeleted if someone is willing to source it. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dillon Dougherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and unsourced BLP of an amateur golfer. Wikidemon removed the PROD with an untrue edit summary claiming the article was sourced. It is not. UnitAnode 00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks like he easily passes notability to me. Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How? "He's notable" isn't an argument. UnitAnode 01:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE per [1]. Joe Chill (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And there are these Google News results. Joe Chill (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. The most notable thing this guy has achieved is coming second in the 2005 US amateur championship. This meant he got to play in the 2006 US Open and Masters. He turned professional and played on the NGA Hooters Tour, which is 2 steps down from the PGA Tour. In the only season I can find any data for, he missed the cut in most competitions, and didn't finish particularly high in any of them (see this). He does not appeared to have played 'professionally' since 2008, with no updates to his own website, or records on the tour website since then. All of the coverage I can find about the guy is from when he was an amateur, and most of the coverage is of the 'sport results round up' variety. Yes he was a decent amateur, but he doesn't seem to have made it as a professional. I would not classify the NGA Hooters Tour as fully professional, given that it is mostly funded from the players' entry fees. Overall, I would go for a delete on this, but can understand if others think his appearing at the Masters and US Open mean he meets athlete. Quantpole (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looking at google news results, seems to have enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. Jujutacular T · C 20:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a catch all search including results going back to before the guy was born. The vast majority of references which mention this person are just summaries of results, with nothing about him at all beyond his score on a particular day. There are a few more, mostly in relation to his runner up position, of which this is a typical result. There are a couple of slightly more in depth pieces in the Chicago Tribune, but they seem to be local interest stories. If that is considered significant coverage, then fair enough, I bow to the consensus, but please at least give some reasoning for why the coverage is good enough rather than just pointing to a search where most of the results aren't even about him. Quantpole (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He seems to pass WP:ATHLETE is my opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chicago tribune article, Sacrament Bee article, L.A. Times article. I consider those to be non-trivial. Together, those satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. Jujutacular T · C 22:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a catch all search including results going back to before the guy was born. The vast majority of references which mention this person are just summaries of results, with nothing about him at all beyond his score on a particular day. There are a few more, mostly in relation to his runner up position, of which this is a typical result. There are a couple of slightly more in depth pieces in the Chicago Tribune, but they seem to be local interest stories. If that is considered significant coverage, then fair enough, I bow to the consensus, but please at least give some reasoning for why the coverage is good enough rather than just pointing to a search where most of the results aren't even about him. Quantpole (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep It seems to me that he was a notable amateur who went pro. Professional athletes are usually kept. He was not a successful pro, but he should probably be kept.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:52, 26 January 2010 (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.