Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Denton

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 - strong arguments from both sides; to me it's agreed that he fails sporting notability and the real debate is over general notability. Looking at the sources provided on both the article and here, I cannot see the "significant" coverage that is required by GNG. Giant Snowman 12:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Denton[edit]

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

No evidence he meets WP:ATHLETE Delete Secret ^account 22:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and specifically WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure he was a Div III player, but it seems (if I'm reading it right) he played in two Division III national championship games. I'm finding a good deal of coverage from his college days, more than enough to pass WP:GNG. It needs to be added to the article, but I think this is an example of an article that is incomplete and can be saved with a little work.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than this which is borderline routine at best and a few passing mentions I clearly don't see it. There is/was a McNeese State pitcher with the same name that has some coverage as well, so the results is confusing, plus its (to my surprise) a very common name. Can you link me to the "good deal of coverage". Thanks Secret ^account 03:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - In just google news here's a good selection, although sadly the San Antonio News article was pulled down. A wider search of all google, not just news yields a whole lot more. Granted many of those are not what we would call "reliable" or "third party" but many of them are.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The few of these that might be considered "reliable" is just passing mentions or routine coverage (signings, game coverage, and such), still nothing that separates his college career as unique per GNG. Secret ^account 16:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - The Yahoo News] article featured him in a video link and has multiple mentions of him in the text of the article itself. The Durango Herald article prominently features him in photo and mentions him early in the article. The NCAA press release stated "Led by seniors Jake Simon, Charles Dieuseul, Chris Denton and company, Mount Union overpowered St. Thomas (Minn.) 28-10 en route to its 11th national championship in 16 appearances." The Sports Illustrated article mentions him multiple times. D3Football.com has a good article about the senior class including Denton. Reliable. Not passing mentions. Far above routine. Clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        All of that is poor sourcing that every college football player always get, and if you are going to rebut and keep every expected AFD of players released during training camp, that is a very alarming trend. The Durango Herald was a photo caption of the game, the SI article only mentions him as "Burke threw a 17-yard touchdown pass to Chris Denton" and that he fumbled on some play, which you very much know its a passing mention source that doesn't qualify, the Yahoo article the same, typical game coverage. And what makes you believe that D3Football is a reliable source? and we both know a random press release isn't independent of the subject. None of these sources is about Denton himself, which is what is required per WP:GNG Secret ^account 22:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The so-called "random press release" that "isn't independent" was from the NCAA: not from the individual, not from the school's athletic program, not from the school itself, and not from the conference. There's a good deal of separation there. The Durango Herald believed that he was significant enough to the game to include a photo and that means something. They led the story with the photo and the caption stated "Chris Denton and Mount Union ran away with their 11th Division III championship... ". The mentions in SI further support WP:GNG because, as GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Further, he is mentioned four times in the SI article concerning four separate plays in four separate paragraphs, not 2 as you are attempting to lead everyone to believe: "Burke threw a 17-yard touchdown pass to Chris Denton on fourth down late in the third quarter", "a fumble by punt returner Denton recovered by Zach Novaczyk", "Burke hit Denton in the left corner for the TD.", and "the officials said they needed to review Burke's 10-yard pass to Chris Denton to the 1". These are not trivial mentions as clearly SI considered him significant to game play. On D3Football.com, that's a part of the USA Today media group, which is widely considered to be reliable on Wikipedia. The "typical game coverage" is coverage that far surpasses WP:ROUTINE coverage of box scores. And finally, your crass comments in the history of this article ("-sigh i can't deal with this shit every single day") are disruptive, uncivil, un-called for, and certainly are not a reason to delete the article. This apparent uncivil behavior combined with invalid assessment of the SI article leads me to believe that you are being deceptive in your argumentation and your comments should be ignored. I have provided evidence here to support my statements with reasoning and links to support with the documentation. Could you simply have made an error? I would think so had it not been for the crass comments in the discussion history.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        There is no error, and I'm not going to back down until I see extra evidence otherwise. Most of the NCAA content is from the schools themselves and violates "Independent of the subject". They are usually student based press releases written for the school they are affiliated with if you read it closely in the bottom, I did some work with them years ago for my university so I should know. Only a small amount of their content go though an editorial review, and that's typically the major bowl games, top 25, top players and whatever is popular at the present moment. Plus the only thing it states about Denton is "Led by seniors Jake Simon, Charles Dieuseul, Chris Denton and company, Mount Union overpowered St. Thomas (Minn.) 28-10 en route to its 11th national championship in 16 appearances." That is not "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail" which is most important part of GNG. The SI source, I made a small error, but still, you know better that its typical game coverage that Denton in, same with the Yahoo source, both of which has always been considered "routine coverage in GNG. As for the last source, it has a small paragraph on Denton, but the content of the article is about seniors playing their last game for Mount Union, a rather weak source but the best you posted so far. But seriously sometimes I believe that you simply pick articles that you like and vote keep as I've seen you vote delete on players that has a far stronger case of meeting GNG. Secret ^account 19:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content" You look at the first part but fail to include the second -- there is no original research in this article that I can find and therefore the requirement of the sources addressing the subject directly in detail have been meet per the guideline. Over... and over... and over... again. Instead, you admittedly are 1) requiring "extra evidence" (which could be viewed as an admission that there is ample evidence but you are choosing to ignore it) and 2) owning up to a personal bias with your background at one particular university and that we should "trust you" (another way of stating "original research"). And then you bring up unstated and unverified "votes" that I make in AFD as though that would matter. It doesn't. However, if you have any other AFDs that you'd like me to revisit you can let me know on my talk page and I'll check them out.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        By the way, I just noticed an earlier comment "All of that is poor sourcing that every college football player always get" -- but that's another untrue statement. For example, in the SI article I count 16 unique individuals mentioned. Each team will yield 11 players on offense and 11 on defense before special teams and substitutions. That gives 44 players that would get significant time in any given game--yet only 16 are mentioned--about 36% of the starters. Therefore, the coverage can't be something that "every college football player always get(s)" as you state.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You are not starting to make sense here, how the hell do have a personal bias with any personal university. I don't and that's borderline WP:NPA right there. You keep ignoring the fact that there no, significant, non-trivial coverage of Denton in mainstream media sources that isn't run of the mill game coverage. Also with your rationale, presume 11 players get "coverage" in a game per day, that doesn't mean that those 11 players are automatically notable. There are injuries, poor play, and so forth to consider. With your rationale, pretty much every coverage athlete mentioned in any game coverage automatically meets WP:GNG, which is simply flawed. Secret ^account 17:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "I did some work with them years ago for my university so I should know." -- your words, not mine. You posted it. you imply that we should trust you because of your bias, your history, your experience. See WP:IKNOW for further reasoning.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm talking about writing press releases for my university that they sent to the website, so I know how it works. I never directly worked for the website, nor I have nothing against Mount Union or the player (my university is Division I btw so why would I attack a Division III school which is simply absurd). You clearly know what I meant when I stated that comment but now you are intentionally mixing words around to try to win an argument, which is clearly disappointing. We both should stop snipping attacks at each other and just drop the subject matter completely as we both look like fools here. Agree? Secret ^account 18:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Better yet I think we both should drop the conversation and leave it up to other editors to decide if the article is notable enough for to stay on Wikipedia. We both have such strong, opposite, differentials on the subject area, this conversation will simply drag on. Most of what we argued anyways is better discussed in some policy or guideline page, as we both are making fools of each other here for a Division III player. Secret ^account 17:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It's unfortunately not a matter of just a difference of opinion. People disagree with me all the time and I leave it at that. But whenever I see someone in AFD make a false argument, provide incorrect data, make crass comments in the article history, ignore facts, demand "extra evidence", threaten they are "not going to back down", quote part of a policy or guideline while leaving out material information, or other such arguments--whenever I see that, I will comment and point it out. That's the deal.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well its a personal opinion then, especially with "false argument" "ignoring facts" and "incorrect data". Guidelines, especially like GNG can be interpreted in many different ways, including your rather inclusionist belief or my deletionist belief as shown here. With the unclear wording of many of the key notability and the WP:NOT stuff, an editor needs to figure out what is the best interpretation/meaning of the relevant guideline/policy on the subject nominated for deletion. That doesn't indicate that either side is "right" or "wrong". Unless the rationale is so flawed (WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT stuff, copyvios, stuff like that), there is no such thing as any of those statements here on AFD. Secret ^account 02:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No it is not personal opinion. Every point I showed above can be verified by anyone. You are going way beyond the breadth of interpretation. You can't even count the number of mentions of a subject in a third party news article properly. Is it your opinion that "four" is the new "two" or that "box scores" and "feature article" are the same thing? Is it your opinion that you can require "extra evidence" for this article but not another article? That's not an opinion, that's flat-out wrong.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Uhh... yes it is, plus now you are making false allegations. I'm tempted to take you to AN/I as it is becoming ridiculous and you refuse to corroborate here, misleading my comments, and refusal to back down despite telling you a few times. Now I think you are trying to prove a WP:POINT with your personal opinions, adding an essay you created based on this gone out of hand discussion to WP:ROUTINE and that the other regular sports editors Dirtlawyer, etc. are hardly active. Secret ^account 19:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Before you do that, you might want to read a little bit about what WP:AN/I is for. I'd recommend you go to Dispute resolution instead. I would welcome a third party review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Read some more of your last response and have some questions: 1) What does another editor not participating in this AFD yet have anything to do with this discussion? 2) What does my writing an essay have to do with lessening the quality of any argument I bring up?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul McDonald. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty ₈₄₅ 15:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet Notability. Only articles out there are not about him but about the team and mention him in passing. Also concerns on POV/COI in the information from other references. Caffeyw (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Wikipedia general notability guideline does not require that the subject of a Wikipedia article be the feature subject of an article to establish notability. POV/COI concerns can be addressed using other sources cited above in this AFD that have yet to be added to the article (there is no deadline).--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're adding something that I didn't say. I never said it was because they where not the main subject. I stated they where only mentioned in passing. ie Chris played tonight doesn't make a usable source for notability. However, Chris consider by many to be ... would lead to at least some notability since he was the subject. Regardless of if it's only a small section, he needs to be the subject and not a detail for the subject. Caffeyw (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response Please go read WP:GNG. The guideline is clear that the subject of the Wikipedia article does not need to be the subject of the source article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - though I think that Wikipedia is increasingly too US weighted (and especially in the amount of sportsmen who count as notable), there does seem to be just about enough notability (reasonably sized piece on bucaneers.com, especially) established for this guy based on current guidelines. StuartDouglas (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. The sources provided, here and in the article, are not even taken cumulatively enough to meet the notability guidelines. BigDom (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's part of an NFL team, plus he's already attracted some media attention which grants him an article. Also, all Tampa Bay players have Wikipedia articles. Why shouldn't he have one?Springyboy (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. BigDom (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NFL teams sign lots of players before season begins -- article can be restored if he ever actually plays in a regular season game. NE Ent 11:16, 25 August 2013 (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.