Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsey Witten

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Witten[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable: hasn't yet played a professional game. HVB648 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG per [1].--Giants27(T|C) 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. NSPORTS does not automatically assume notability of players who played in the UFL. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. ~~He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.~~ WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Has been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in mainstream media. Not just passing references in game coverage, but coverage focused on him. See, e.g., [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Cbl62 (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to be non-routine coverage, and I strike it from my previous comment. However, I still consider him WP:Run-of-the-mill, and GNG says "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." WP:IAR policy says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I believe its best to not have a stand-alone article for an average college player who went undrafted. No prejudice to recreate if he ever plays in a notable professional league. —Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No good reason to ignore the rules here. Cbl62 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2011 (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.