====
- User:TonyTheTiger/Levi Horn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Page was deleted before he made the taxi squad roster. Taxi squad players are uncontroversially allowed to have pages. The National Football League has a 53-man active roster of players who are eligible to play in each game and an additional 8-man taxi squad of players who are guaranteed about 1/3rd the minimum salary of active roster minimum salaries to practice with the team. These players are usually the first players added to the active roster in the event of injury. He is a paid professional member of the team, earning years of service towards a pension and other benefits. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. it goes without saying that I feel this should close as Overturn as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please link the policy or documentation that states that these players are notable. There is frequently a mismatch between sub-guidelines and the GNG so please advise whether there is anything close to passing the GNG? I also see that you have added a rescue tag to the userfied article. Its not normal to add that to an article at DRV. There is no need anyway as the ARS regulars are all frequent visitors to DRV so they will see this listing anyway. I think I asked you three times already (AN, REFUND and now here) for the policy behind your assertion of notability. If you are trying to get the close overturned reference to policy works miles better then unsubstantiated assertions. Cheers. Spartaz Humbug! 19:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion was reasonable given the discussion. Sports stuff always confuses me. He clearly and easily meets the GNG, but I know folks like to see more often in sports because of the massive coverage. [1] is solely about him, [2] I can't see all of, but it looks likely to have significant coverage, [3] is short but solely about him as is [4]. Thus Cbl62's requirements at AfD are probably met. I'm leaning overturn to NC based on a flawed discussion, but want to see what others have to say since sports isn't my thing. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Policy keeps changing. I see the current policy at WP:NGRIDIRON says notability is presumed for players who have played one game. He has not. However, I have never seen a player AFDed who was on an active practice squad in season. These players use to be considered notable. Whatever changes in policy made this guy AFDable during training camp, may confirm deletion. I am DRVing out of past custom that players on current payroll by teams at the highest level of their sport are notable. He is on the payroll of an NFL team.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Humm, I saw something that said he'd played in a pre-season game. Is that accurate? Would it count? Hobit (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No it wouldn't but that's academic. If the subject passes GNG then my vote is to overturn to keep based on the rationale that sub-guidelines are subject to an overarching meta consensus which is that notability is a deliberately low bar for inclusion and that having two decent reliable sources is enough. Spartaz Humbug! 19:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be official, at this point I'm at overturn to keep with no fault assigned to the closer as (many) of the sources weren't in the discussion or article at that time. Hobit (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I'm with Spartaz. The GNG prevails. Overturn to keep.—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn- As Hobit points out above, the GNG was met. Since one guideline was met, we don't need to worry about whether or not others have been met. That said, I can't fault the closer, since I think the consensus was read correctly even if the discussion was flawed. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I can't fault the close - at the time of closing there was a clear consensus that the subject was lacking under both GNG and ATHLETE. I would have deleted this too had I closed that. This will clearly overturn to keep but we should make sure we reflect that this was based on additional sourcing emerging... Spartaz Humbug! 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, practice squad players have never been considered notable per policy, it was per a consensus that was purported to have existed which determined the outcome of many AfDs years ago. If I can !vote here, I'd !vote Endorse deletion (I commented at the AfD but never formally !voted). The Spokesman article is the only significant coverage Horn received; the Newsbank article is presumably only a one-liner, Native News Network is not a reliable source from what I can see (they called the NFL lockout a "strike" among other errors), and neither is indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both look reliable to me. Note that the error you cite is what they say he called it. They probably should have clarified, but still. As far as ictmn, see [5] which (while a press release) gives a background on the site. Seems likely to be reliable. Hobit (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first line at WP:RS#Overview says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Not only is that article laden with factual errors, but the grammar is atrocious. I do not consider one real article plus two articles from Native American newspapers with questionable reliability enough to pass WP:GNG.
- There was a clear consensus at the AfD and there should be no overturning the close unless it is determined that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly (as others have said here, this is not the case) or significant new information is brought up (two new articles from sites devoted to discussing people of Native American heritage should not qualify as "significant") per Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The consensus at the AfD was clearly to delete and Sandstein made the right call. That said, I would be willing to vote overturn if I thought the subject met GNG or NSPORTS (also called ATH). But he does not. NSPORTS has never said that being on a practice squad is enough and nor is playing a practice match. An actual regular season match is what's required and Horn does not have that. In regards to GNG, I agree completely with Eagles' comments above. The two native American websites do not appear to be RS, the Great Falls Tribune article seems to be a run-of-the-mill one-liner and, although the Spokesman-Review is significant coverage, GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources" (my bold). One article is not enough in my opinion. Jenks24 (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's supposed to be unreliable about the native American websites, exactly?—S Marshall T/C 00:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I continue to see no reason to think those sources aren't reliable there are others now in the draft article. This certain would seem to be a fine source. The draft article has a few others too. Hobit (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like every player on the Montana Grizzlies football team has a featured article like that on that section of the website devoted to UM: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. All within the last 30 days, and none of these players will have Wikipedia articles in the future. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter. DRV's normal position is that the GNG trumps subject-specific notability guidelines such as WP:ATH. Hobit provided sources, and you didn't like them. Hobit provided more sources, and while it's noted that you still didn't like them, the weight given to the "not notable" argument diminishes with each reliable source provided. The presumption that sources are reliable is rebuttable, but it has yet to be rebutted. To call them unreliable requires more than just an opinion statement: it must be shown why they're unreliable. And the fact that a source is recent has no bearing on its reliability at all.—S Marshall T/C 07:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please re-read my above comment before you twist my words. I merely pointed out that one of the sources provided writes many featured articles on many non-notable Montana players, not that the source was recent. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain A) how you know those other players are notable (the coverage in question would lead me to think they may well be notable, but you seem to be taking the opposite tack) and B) why their notability matters wrt Horn? I think I'm confused about what you are trying to get at... Hobit (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn; maybe relist at AFD, since people are objecting to the new sourcing. (Not to say the closure was incorrect.) He has more coverage than most players of his current status, being a spokesman for the White House's Let's Move! program [17]. Indian Country Today, which has published several articles about him [18], is a respectable source, see its description published by U of Nebraska [19]. Novickas (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Practice squad players are NOT notable and never will be automatically given notability, but I am satisfied that he passes WP:GNG in its current state, as well having been unanimously named All-Big Sky Conference, which should be worth something. When I heard about this DRV, I was probably going to endorse the deletion, but having looked at the article, I think he's notable. However, he doesn't pass WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 20:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have restored the history of the article and merged it to the userfied version simply to address the issue of attribution. I have no opinion on the outcome of the DRV; this is simply procedurally required. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep per Tony the Tiger. No criticism of the close but the article has now been much approved. No reason for this noteable player not to have a mainspace article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation (being pedantic here, but I won't say overturn since the original close was correct based only on that discussion). Plenty of reliable sources support notability under WP:GNG, so there's no reason not to have a page on him. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
