Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Mortensen

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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mortensen[edit]

No significant coverage, fails WP:ATHLETE and notability doesn't transfer from generation to generation. Giants27 (c|s) 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the link you provided, the first six of eight hits are all articles specifically about this guy. Passes WP:GNG. In fact, I would have been surprised if a quarterback at a major college program like Arkansas didn't pass general notability guidelines. Here are some articles: ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Scout, USA Today, ESPN, The Morning News, ESPN, Scout, Scout... That's a quarter of the way through the 400+ Google News hits, the rest are here if more are needed.
- Yeah I noticed and looked at those but most of them are from his Arkansas days, pre-2006 and nothing came out of his days at Samford.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. I fail to see whether "nothing came out of" it has to do with notability. We shouldn't place our own subjective opinions about their worth in order to determine notability. That's why we have more objective measures like the general notability guideline to help us. Strikehold (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He was at Arkansas, left for Samford, then returned to Arkansas, so be careful how you read those articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until we see if he makes the team. Insufficient notability at this time and it seems like a longshot to make the squad, but an opportunity to establish notability in the future shouldn't be precluded. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His NFL career or potential has no bearing on his current notability. Passing or failing WP:ATHLETE is as relevant as his passing or failing WP:POLITICIAN. As an additional criteria, if he fails one of those, we then fall back to the more general criteria of WP:BIO and WP:GNG. To me, it's pretty clear Mortensen passes those. Therefore, he's notable. Strikehold (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesnt meet guidelines--Yankees10 16:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share which ones? Strikehold (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going with it because his college career passes notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep Or userfy RF23 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets general notability standards per coverage cited by Strikehold. Cbl62 (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG, which is enough to establish notability regardless of what WP:ATHLETE says. Jafeluv (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep poorly written article though. Needs improvement, but that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2009 (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.