Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Holmes (football player)

Add links
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 delete. At the very best, notability is shaky. College athletes, even starters, have regularly and definitively been deleted as "non-notable". This particular player, even for a highly watched, high profile team, got busted with drugs (allegedly? not sure of a conviction even, doesn't look like it), which stirred up a whir of marginal AP releases, and a (reliable) ESPN story. (By the way, the arrest involved three players that had playing time, James Ingram and Ed Collington don't have articles, or I would include them in this deletion). If Holmes' playing time has been deemed non-notable by Wikipedia precedence and guideline, his personal issues don't suddenly make his playing time notable, any more than his playing time make his drug bust encyclopedically notable. WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLP1E, apply. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Holmes (football player)

[edit]
John Holmes (football player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable college football player per WP:ATHLETE. Not a professional, and no awards as a college player. Really only notable for being kicked off the team. DarkAudit (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Clearly NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable using the same arguments referenced above, except they have been mis-applied and called "clearly NN" (non-notable). Please read WP:BIO a little more carefully. Also, if you're going to quote WP:ATHLETE please remember to quote all of it, including the part that states "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" ... college football is the highest level of amatuer football.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • further comments I'd like to see this article given some time to develop. The controversy over the drug charges appear to have been resolved as a "wrong place/wrong time" issue, and steps have been taken to restore him back to the team. His new coach is standing up for him and it appears he's going to be a starter once again. There's a lot on the news cycles about him, mostly related to the drug charges, but he did perform well in the Gator Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl with at least borderline noteworthy achievements.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment College football is not the highest level of the sport. The NFL, CFL, etc is. He has not won any pre or postseason awards. If not for the drug charges, he would have received little of the press he is currently receiving, which is basically WP:BLP1E. And in the interest of full disclosure, I'm local to WVU (I can see the Coliseum out my front window). Don't let your fannhood trump guidelines here. Not every Mountaineer deserves a page. DarkAudit (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can't speak for the NFL, but the CFL is fully professional, so isn't the highest level of amateur sport. If college football is indeed the highest level of amateur sport, then surely he meets WP:ATHLETE. Are there no national-level amateur teams? Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The "highest level in amateur sports" is generally regarded as those sports that do not have a fully professional league. College football does not fit that description. A couple of good games and a cluster of stories centered around a drug bust do not rise to the level of notability required here. DarkAudit (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. There's nothing in WP:ATHLETE that says that the second clause about amateur sports is an OR statement. And reading the rest of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that would not be the case. Nfitz (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply College football is not considered an amateur sport because there is a fully professional level of competition. He is not played in a professional league, so does not meet the guideline. Even as a college football player, there isn't much here but a lot of peacock words that make him sound more notable than he is. Nothing here to show that he is notable even on his own team. The majority of the references are for the drug bust and the aftermath. Not only is it a single event, the coverage is all local. Local as in towns of 20,000 or less local. There is coverage, but mere coverage is not sufficient per guidelines. It needs to be significant coverage. It isn't. DarkAudit (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply "College football is not considered an amateur sport because there is a fully professional level of competition.". That defies logic - if you used that logic one would say amateur soccer doesn't exist because there is a fully professional level of competition; but in any park on any evening it is full of amateur players. Obviously there is amateur football. But is college football the highest level? What about University football? What about this amateur league - North American Football League Nfitz (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Break and indented for lots of replies from one editor
          • Reply-Amatuer? College football is most certainly an amateur sport. It is widely accepted to be the highest level of the amateur sport for American football. Sure, the NFL exists, but that absoloutely does not mean that college football does not, nor would it negate its amateur status.
          • Reply-Not played professional by that rule, only NFL players would ever be notable and there would never be notable college-only players like Pete Dawkins, Knute Rockne, Tim Tebow, etc... yet consensus says that just isn't the case.
          • Reply-Peacock terms agreed, the article could stand a good re-write--but not a deletion. As stated in WP:PROBLEM, "Even a poor article can be of benefit, and not so bad that Wikipedia is better off without it." Unless the article is harmful in some way, it likely should be improved instead of deleted.
          • Reply-not notable even on his own team 48 tackles his Sophomore season, significant play time his Junior year and strong efforts in two bowl games--yet you expect us to beleive that even his teammates don't know who he is? That's ridiculous.
          • Reply-Majority of references about the drug bust Sure, if 3 of 6 is a majority (hint: it isn't). Agreed more inforamtion should be added (but again, that's no reason to delete)
          • Reply-Single Event There is significant detail for his sophomore and junior years. That is clearly not a "single" event but two seasons and details on two bowl games.
          • Reply-Local Coverage since when are USA Today and ESPN "local coverage"?
        • End of Break thanks for reading!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DarkAudit's claim that college football players cannot be notable under WP:ATHLETE because the NFL is the "highest level of competition" or because "amateur sports" are those which have no professional league is wrong. WP:ATHLETE links to Amateur sports which has a section Amateur sports#North American collegiate athletics which discusses American college football as an "amateur sport." A college football player, particular one on a top national team, or one who wins national awards, can certainly be considered notable, since there are multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage, satisfying WP:N as well. Edison (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply For the purposes of WP:ATHLETE, college football is not considered an amateur sport. Your lawyering aside, the player still does not meet the previously established guidelines for college football players. The player has not won national awards. The ESPN article is about the drug bust, and the other articles about the incident are from local media. That is WP:BLP1E, and is not "susbtantial". The other national coverage is for the team, not a feature on the player. So yes, the majority of articles that feature the player instead of a passing mention in a wider article is about the drug bust. Bringing up Rockne and Tebow is a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rockne is a national championship winning coach from the era where the NFL was a sideshow at best. Dawkins and Tebow won the Heisman. This guy hasn't even rated a Player of the Week. There are higher standards for college football players than "significant play time his junior year". DarkAudit (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply' To you, "lawyering" seems to consist of saying you are wrong and citing the Wikipedia article that proves you are wrong. Deal with it. You are wrong. Edison (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment Let me cite Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability#Players here. "Went on to play in the NFL, AFL, or CFL (or other comparable professional leagues)" No. "went on to be a head coach in the NFL, AFL, or CFL (or other comparable professional leagues)" No. "Were inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame" No. "Won major national awards such as the Heisman Trophy, Outland Trophy, Wuerffel Trophy, Doak Walker Award, or other similar trophy" No. "Completed a special noteworthy play or achievement" No. "Otherwise achieve notability outside of college football." No. By your own wikiproject's standards he fails to achieve the required notability. The examples cited for notability outside football are former Presidents Ford and Reagan. A local drug bust does not compare. DarkAudit (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hey you read the essay! Thanks! Four points here: 1) I'm willing to leave room for the argument that his two seasons of play, two bowl game appearances, and the controversy may qualify as a "speical noteworthy play or achievement" and would like to hear arguments both for and against it (other than just "No" if you don't mind), 2) the player notability guidelines are going through a major discussion right now on the notability essay's talk page (why not participate?), 3) Those notability guidelines are not meant to "take away" notability from a player that has already clearly achieved it; and 4) all of the other arguments for deletion were seriously flawed and should not be considered reason to delete: saying that college football is not an amatuer sport when the whole planet knows that it is; asserting that the article covers only a single event when it obviously provides details of two seasons of play; and saying that the player isn't notable even by his teammates--all those were totally invalid and inappropriate arguments that reek of WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it shows a bias against the subject which is not grounds for deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I wasn't saying that college football was not an amateur sport at all, but for WP:ATHLETE purposes, because there is a professional level beyond college, it is not in the same category as the other "ameteur" sports. That's for Wikipedia article purposes, not the world as a whole. I cited WP:BLP1E because most of the references for the player and not the team were for the bust and subsequent dismissal from the team. The "not notable even on the team" was not that he wasn't known amongst his teammates, but that he is not that well known amongst the less-than-rabid WVU fans (I'm certainly a fan... I've got a WV shirt on and I can see the WVU Coliseum from where I'm sitting right now). The rabid ones would know him certainly, but the rest of us wouldn't if not for the bust, not like Boo McLee, Johnny Dingle, or Scooter Berry. (Schmitt, Slaton, and White are on a whole other level... practically cult figures, especially Owen Schmitt \o/ _o_ \o/ _o_) DarkAudit (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia certainly does not need articles on every college football player who ever played the game. This person has done nothing to distinguish themselves from hundreds of thousands of other non-notable players. "Highest level of amateur sports" can be interpreted far too broadly for any sort of reasonable inclusion notability standards. That would include anything from this guy, to a 3rd string punter who sits on the bench, to a 3rd string volleyball player. None merit a page. Let's leave the pages for people who actually did something notable, such as those who go on to play professionally or won a college award, please. VegaDark (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see one argument here, and one non-argument here.
First, the argument: done nothing to distinguish from other non-notable players Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd make the argument that the player has indeed separated himself from a third string punter who sits on the bench by... well... not sitting on the bench and actually playing and making tackles and stuff... Is it enough for notability? Maybe. Is it more than a third string punter who sits on the bench? Definitely.
Second, the non-argument: Too Many Articles See WP:EVERYTHING -- Wikipedia should not be about everything, yes. That does not mean that a particular college football player may not be notable. WP:Everything states that the Wikipedia community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines on what should be kept. This means that not every college football player should have an article--but that also does not translate into an argument that any given article about a college football player should be deleted. Because there may be a question about notability, there should be a specific reason to delete or not to delete. At the college football project, we have found that one editor's "everything" argument is another editor's "surmountable problem"
What I see from your statement is that you think the player has not done enough to be notable, and you may be right... but comparing the player who has played in games, has recorded tackles, has generated statistics, and has articles written about him to a player who has none of that is a seriously flawed argument and I think shows prejudice.
Bottom line is this: The player is either notable or is not notable--somebody else being not notable doesn't mean this player is also not notable. The notability arguments should stand on their own merit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for play in a bowl game is dicey when another play in the same game earns a name. Google Runaway Beer Truck. Four tackles pales by comparison. DarkAudit (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to go with "so what" on that one... okay someone did something spectactular in one game, sure. Someone else has played fairly regularly for two seasons. It's not even a fair comparision--of course, if you drop all of one season and almost all of another, then compare one bowl game performance to another, then YEAH... but you gotta look at the entire content of the article and subject at hand here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I did not argue "too many articles" - I stated that Wikipedia does not need articles on such players. That's two different things. "Not needed" does not equal "we would have too many articles" - For me it meant that this player is not notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, as I later explained. Further, the fact that a starter vs. a 3rd string punter are completely different is exactly my point in that "highest level of amatuer sports" can not reasonably be used as the standard for inclusion, since that standard could include any people in my example, or any college athlete in general (3rd string women's bowling athletes, for an even more extreme example). I'm saying that the standard of "highest level of amatuer sports" should not be used here (or ever) for that reason. Instead, we must look at this from a reasonable point of view. I would argue that it is not reasonable to have pages on all college athletes who have recorded statistics (or even started) for a team, as you apparently support. There are around, what, 70 to 100 players on any given college team? Over 4 years, let's say 75% of them record statistics. That times 119 (FBS schools only) would mean somewhere inbetween 8000 and 9000 players every 4 years would deserve articles. And that's only FBS schools, and that's only football. Imagine if this standard were applied over all NCAA sports. Hell, let's increase the standard to being a starter (this in itself presents problems...is someone who replaces an injured player a starter? How about people who only start on special teams?). That right there would allow for articles on about 25 players per team initially, adding about 10 on average per team per year for new starters. That amounts to about 6500 articles for football players from FBS schools alone over a 4 year period. Now, I am not pointing this out to say "Too many articles!", I am pointing this out to ask how we can consider this that notable? I fully support pages for college athletes who go on to the pros, or win a college award. I even support allowing pages for All-Americans. But simply playing in a game, or simply playing as a starter, is not notable enough for someone to get a page on an encyclopedia. I would further argue that winning all-conference honors should not make someone notable enough for inclusion. VegaDark (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, lots of stuff there... I'll take a stab at those!
  • Comment--Too many articles/articles not needed okay, we'll go with that. What exactly does "needed" mean in Wikipedia? Well, that goes back to the five pillars I guess... but the bottom line is that we are not here to decide if this article is needed in Wikipedia, but if it is a noteworthy subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is far from complete, and there are many articles that certainly would be more worthy than this one for inclusion--but that does not negate this one (or any one other) just because it isn't as important.
  • Comment-"highest level of amatuer sports" is unreasonable Maybe, but that's what it is on Wikipedia:BIO and Wikipedia:Athlete--which was reached by consensus. If you don't like that (and there's nothing that says you do have to like it), then shouldn't your argument be made there and not here? Why this player?
  • Comment-all college athletes unreasonable agreed. But we're not talking about all college athletes, we're talking about this college athlete. (Someone's going to reference it, so I will: See WP:BIG for some enlightened reading).
  • Comment-all starters is too much also agreed. But again, we're not talking about all starters, just this one.
  • 'Comment-wrap up This player has met the guidelines for notability based on the news articles published from local, regional, and national sources. He's been the subject of both on and off the field issues--some flattering, some not. He's been referenced as a key player and contributor for the team by leading experts in the field. The only thing I see wrong with this article is that it needs some cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (people) is a guideline, not policy that must be followed at all times. ESPN and SI.com and whatnot always publish articles on when a player gets arrested or kicked off a team. School websites usually have player bios for every team member. Local papers have articles on lesser-known players all the time, and national sources regularly cover bowl game results. A culmination of some or all of these does not make one notable enough for Wikipedia IMO. This is a case where multiple third party sources alone does not establish notability enough for a page, and I would argue that for almost all college athletes. VegaDark (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it's a guideline, but there's a reason it's a guideline--it works quite a bit. Sure, exceptions can be made--why in this case? The argument seems to be that "this player is not notable because all those news sources would obviously carry news articles about such noteworthy events and therefore since it happens a lot it isn't notable" --- I really don't understand your point. He's not notable because of all the press he's gotten? Local papers and school websites can be good supplemental material for an article, as is the case here. And ESPN and SI do publish articles when players are removed from the team for charges because its ... well... a noteworthy event... and the bowl games are ... well... noteworthy events... but they don't count? Why not?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current debate in the CFB notability discussion is wary of listing even All-Americans. This guy isn't one. He wasn't even all-conference. It doesn't even look like he won a player of the month or week. The way I read the standards, a college football player must be an award winner, an award candidate, on the cover of a video game, or garnering national notice on his own for his play, and not for unfortunate off-field incidents. The play may be solid, but when the NFL and CFL are the next step up, solid doesn't cut it for a Wikipedia article as a college player. DarkAudit (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response yes it is, and I'm one of those wary people of granting a notability "blank check" to "all-Americans" because there really isn't any clear-cut definition of exactly what is an "all-American"--which brings us right back to this athlete. If the athlete qualifies for notability under WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE (and I believe this one does), then the college football notability guidelines certainly wouldn't "take away" the notability that has already been established. This is one of the reasons that specific guidelines have yet to be developed in that essay. It's more than just solid performance, it's the coverage of two seasons worth of solid performance coupled with the legal issues. Heck, the player could have had lousy performance, but with news coverage like that over time he'd still be notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply With "news coverage like that" over time he'll be doing hard time. The coverage where he is the subject, and not the team as a whole, is solely about the drug case. In other words, except for the drug bust, he's mentioned only in passing as part of a wider article. That does not meet the guidelines of WP:BIO, let alone the athlete subsection. Notability has not been established for his performance on the field. When the WVU Sports Information office doesn't have any record of him being named all-anything or even getting a player of the week or month (yes, I called them) notability isn't there. DarkAudit (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Your last comment makes it sound like you are trying to exclude the article because you are a WVU fan (which you admitted above) and that you may be thinking that it looks bad for the team to have an article about someone you believe is headed for "hard time" ... yes, he's mentioned in passing in some articles and featured in others--some on the drug bust, at least one on his restoration back to the team--indicating mutliple events and not a single event. As a stand-alone player, probably not notable. Factor in the other issues, and notability comes to the surface.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply Not at all. I called them to confirm if he had been named to any of those accolades because if he had, it would have shown notability that without it just isn't there. I just was following up on your "news coverage like that" statement. The bust and hoped-for return is still the same case. Take away the stories about the bust, and there are no stories where he is the feature. You'll note that I also argued in favor of deleting the Willie Edwards (a member of the 1988 Fiesta Bowl team) article a few months back, and his record is impeccable. Just being a member of a top-25 football team, even a starter, does not make one inherently notable. Solid play does not make one notable, one must stand out. He does not. My support for WVU does not change the fact that the guidelines in WP:ATHLETE and the College Football Project as they currently stand are not met, and no amount of claiming "yes he is" over and over again in spite of that will change it. Slaton's in the NFL. White's a Heisman candidate. Devine has ESPN drooling. Schmitt's on the cover of NCAA '09. Those are the type of player the project deems article-worthy. Not everyone who takes the field, starter or scrub. DarkAudit (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Yes, one must "stand out" as you say, but that "standing out" as a player with great ability and results is not the only notability guideline. Daniel Ruettiger and Katie Hnida come to mind--only a handful of plays for them, yet they both achieved noteworthy accomplishments that brought them above the average player to warrant articles. Rudy's was positive (a movie) Katie's was mixed (first female to score in Div IA, then the CU rape controversy). My point is that not all notability issues are positive about the topic. Sometimes notability can come from a negative event, and I believe that is the case here.
            • Additional Comment VegaDark says that the WP:ATHLETE standard is unreasonable, DarkAudit says that WP:ATHLETE has not been met. Can you get together on this one, or do you want to maintain opposing points?
            • And one more comment I never just say "yes it is" and have given multiple arguments to support the points I make. A cursory review of this page will show that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The drug bust is a local story. ESPN picked it up because of the notability of the program, not the player. Notability is not inherited or conferred by association. Just starting for a top 25 team does not meet the established guidelines. The bust and it's aftermath is WP:BLP1E. The CU rape controversy made national headlines for weeks, and destroyed the credibility of the coach. They made a movie about Rudy. Again, no comparison. DarkAudit (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-local story? If it was a local story, why was it covered at the national level? If it was a local story, it would remain a local story. Like this one. But it wasn't, it got national headlines. Are the news sources of ESPN and SI and USA Today so full of dunderheads that they can't tell a national story from a local one?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional All the examples you have cited, in addition to being WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, is classic apples to oranges. All have made a significant impact on their team, the sport, or society in general, where Mr. Holmes has most definitely not. DarkAudit (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HURRAHHH! Which is why I keep coming back to "judge the article based on its entire topic" instead of coming up with all kinds of generic non-applicable arguments. Get back to the topic at hand. It's not just an article about the player's playing ability, but about the player--the good and the bad, on the field and off.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply As has been said before, ESPN and SI, et al., cover college football. That's their job. Someone, anyone, even the 9th-string long-snapper getting kicked off a top-25 program is news. Especially when it involves players being arrested. That does not immediately make that player notable or encyclopedic. Being a starter or near-starter doesn't make it any more important. Especially when the coverage starts and ends with arrested and kicked off the team. When all is said and done, even if he gets back on the team today and has a similar season to last, he'll still be just another linebacker/defensive back who played big-time college football and went on with their lives. The bust will have been long relegated to the mists of time. DarkAudit (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a 9th string long snapper with a drug bust wouldn't be notable. A 9th string long snapper wouldn't have national articles covering play time either and probably wouldn't even dress for two bowl games. But this isn't a 9th string long snapper, it is a starting linebacker with two years of serious playing time coupled with another issue that is still getting coverage. Those unique combinations over several years time make a strong argument for notability. Evidently not enough for you, and I get that--but please stop making up arguments that just don't apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Let's see here... ESPN's article is just a reprint of the same AP story that everyone got. The USA today article has a grand total of 5 words about Holmes, and 2 of those were his name. Bob Hertzel is a local Morgantown writer. CBS just picked up the story his paper put out on the wire. And there are only 6 words about him in that one. Bowl game writeup? One sentence. Most of *that* was about the other team fumbling. That is as obvious an example of "in passing" as you get. The Fairmont paper and the Clarksburg-Weston TV station cover the team because it's their market. The "combination makes him notable" is very much you saying "yes he is" over and over again when the guidelines quite clearly show that he is not. DarkAudit (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need more participation in this discussion, because it's degrading into a "Wabbit Season--Duck Season" Bugs Bunny-Daffy Duck-Elmer Fudd thig (which is fun to watch on TV, but not so much in in an AFD)--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duck season! Agreed. At this point it's either going to be relisted or close as No Consensus and need a renom. DarkAudit (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've never done a "re-listing" but I'm sure someone will come along and close this as "no consensus" shortly...--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Usually an admin comes by and does either one. There's still a couple days left, but it's buried three days deep in the log where few choose to look. DarkAudit (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after reading through all this debate and looking at the article and linked stories, I don't think there's enough to sustain an article under either WP:Athlete or WP:Bio. The ESPN article is really the only thing that could count as significant coverage. If it had been picked up by nationwide papers, I'd be swayed, but the evidence presented doesn't seem to say it was. The USA Today short mention of "losing . . . John Holmes to legal problems" [1] doesn't count as enough for me. Vickser (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - being a college player doesn't automatically make him (or anyone else) non-notable --T-rex 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Let's examine the sources to see if he passes W:V, irrespective of ATHLETE, N or whatever. Bear in mind, that as with our rules on murderers etc, reference to the crime is not the same as reference to the person (see ref 7 vs ref 6 for a good example of heading toward showing notability). Remember, I'm looking to see if the references help decide notability/verification, not whether they support the specific point being made in the article.:
Ref 1 - Unreliable, I think, which fatally undermines what's otherwise a very very strong reference to Holmes
Ref 2 - Looks reliable. Not a really strong reference to Holmes himself though. ("He will fit into the equation somewhere." sounds like a definition of 'not yet notable')
Ref 3 - No idea about source reliability, but irrelevant, as it's a totally trivial reference to Holmes
Ref 4 - Seems to be an RS. However, fairly irrelevant, as it's a totally trivial reference to Holmes
Ref 5 - passes RS, totally trivial reference to Holmes
Ref 6 - Is WDTV.com an RS? Fairly irrelevant, as it's a totally trivial reference to Holmes
Ref 7 - passes RS, does make some good reference to Holmes
Ref 8 - totally trivial reference to Holmes
Ref 9 - Is The Times West Virginian an RS? If so, this is a solid reference

So, regardless of whether college football passes the acid test of automatic notability (I'm disinclined to see it that way) there's still the excellent point that notable college players will be able to show notability anyway, even if not caught up in drugs busts. This guy doesn't seem to pass WP:V, as the one solid reference (#7) is insufficient for the usual test of multiple, non trivial references in RS. I am fairly ignorant of American football, so I may have made some incorrect assumptions about what's RS. If #1 or #9 are reliable, I'd certainly reconsider. But for now, all in all, I argue for Delete. --Dweller (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - looking at The Times West Virginian source, it appears to be reliable, so there is just enough coverage to keep the article. However, if the subject of the article wants the article deleted, I would change my vote. PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The Times West Virginian is the daily paper of Fairmont, WV, and Bob Hertzel is the former Sports Editor of the Dominion-Post. WDTV is the CBS affiliate in the Clarksburg-Weston market, so reliability is a non-issue. The issue I have with those two sources is location, location, location. For all intents and purposes they are covering a local story. WVU is a mere 40 miles from Clarksburg, and is the 800-pound gorilla in the area. You can't throw a rock without hitting something or someone associated with the university in a three-county area. WVU is part of their beat. There is or will be a feature story done on nearly every player who starts for the Mountaineers between now and the end of the bowl season (then we switch to basketball players). Such has been the case for decades. They're the only game in town. Even so, the articles are not about his play or projected play. They're about one incident, the bust, with a couple of followups regarding his dismissal from and hoped-for return to the team. *All* the articles that feature him, instead of mentioning him in passing, are about the bust. That is a clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. DarkAudit (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - concerns relating to WP:BLP1E per DarkAudit.--PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Holmes_(football_player)&oldid=1137953503"