Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Jessie

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 no consensus. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jessie[edit]

Chris Jessie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Subject is non-notable. Step-son of Mack Brown, interfered with a play in the 2007 Holiday Bowl. That's it. Was prod'ed but template was removed.↔NMajdan•talk 15:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As you said in the talk page, if he becomes an assistant coach later in life, or does this again, he'll be notable. Right now, it's just a bit too much recentism. JKBrooks85 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should only be a note in the article, and perhaps not use his name, as it has WP:BLP concerns over retaliation. Steve Bartman we do not need to support. MECU≈talk 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007 Holiday Bowl. All of the informaion can be incorporated into the Holiday Bowl article. He is not notable outside of the incident. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I apologize - I meant the Holiday Bowl. My mind is somewhere else..BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having lived in Texas for 10 years, I contend that this falls under the category of The-world-(and-therefore-Wikipedia)-revolves-around-Texas mentality that can infect local sports fans in the state. I would suggest to anyone considering voting Keep to simply incorporate the person/incident into the legitimate article 2007 Holiday Bowl. J.A.McCoy (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I didn't make this article and haven't contributed to it, but I don't think that it should be excluded just yet... it's like he's Leon Lett only without the actual illustrious career. Consider also Vinko Bogataj, an otherwise non-notable short-career ski jumper and later coach whose only real claim to fame is that he was viewed every Saturday morning on Wide World of Sports. You know him as "the agony of defeat" -- a true indicator that a single event, even though a blunder, can certainly create notability and warrant an article. Remember: "notable" does not necessarily mean "super-hero" ... I vote keep it, but improve it with a photo or two and clean up the article, provide references, etc. Also, some background on the person would be very helpful.
Why specifically? I see this as a major story about a major college football bowl game this year. Or perhaps the uniqueness of the event itself. Or the application of the rule in football, one of the few times that an inadvertant toching of a live football has ever resulted in an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on an assistant coach. Or the buzz created not only on the net but in broadcast media in general. Or that it is such a unique play. Because of these points, I believe that this will be an event talked about for many years to come--it is not a a temporary topic.
Or, to put it according to Wikipedia:Notability guidelines: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
  1. There has been a wide amount of coverage in the media and on the web
  2. The sources are reliable (ESPN, CNN, etc)
  3. The sources are independent of the subject
I think that people will be talking about this event for many years to come.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, if you or someone else is willing to expand the article and turn it into a real biographical article rather than a brief summary of a single event in his life, I'll change my vote. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm not going to do it, though (as the lone "keep voter" I think we'd need more than just me, and I'm busy on other pages). So if it does NOT get improved, I'd change my vote to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been significantly improved. Force10 (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this guy deserves to mocked and ridiculed in wikiworld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.137.44 (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest you read the site's policy on articles about living people. This site is not for articles whose express purpose is to slander and demean people. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Having an article on Wikipedia for someone to be "mocked and ridiculed" is a great reason to not have the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2007 Holiday Bowl per BlueAg09's reasoning. Right now, there's too much weight put on this guy's single screw up at a college bowl game. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, non sports people shouldnt be reviewing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.139.248 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several of the voters here, including myself, are frequent contributors to college football-related articles.↔NMajdan•talk 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to 2007 Holiday Bowl. He isn't notable enough to have his own article but this incident should be mentioned in the bowl article.Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Wikipedia:Notability guidelines state "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article currently has 15 independent, reputable sources and it is still being improved. In addition, ever TV-crew announcing each bowl game has been mentioning this person and this play. People will be looking for reliable information on him. We should be providing that information. The article exceeds our notability guidelines and there is no reason to delete the article. Force10 (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The coverage of this person has been almost entirely about his single blunder at the Holiday Bowl, and not much more than that. There's not enough information about this person aside from that and him being Mack Brown's stepson to really write a biography about him that would be neutral, much less stay in line with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. All the coverage of this person has been in the scope of the 2007 Holiday Bowl and thus should be merged or redirected to that article, as we have no evidence he is notable outside of that incident. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are mistaken. WP:NPOV does not mandate that we have to cover 10 different things about a person. It only mandates that we be neutral in what we do choose to cover. Likewise, WP:BLP does not forbid articles on people famous for only one thing. Sara Jane Moore is famous for only one thing. Ditto for John Wilkes Booth, Barry Glassman, Alfred B. Hilton, who all happen to hail from the same county. Fanny Mendelssohn is known only for her music. Wikipedia thrives on having good articles on people that are known for something in particular. Force10 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The actions those people made actually made a lasting impact in history. By contrast, all Jessee did was commit a mistake that didn't even affect the result of the game he did it in - just because he happened to get a little extra press for it does not, in fact, make his existence encyclopedic. Again, from Wikipedia:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event:

          Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.

          The entirety of all the coverage of Mr. Jessee has been the subject of is limited to his actions in the 2007 Holiday Bowl and thus his actions should be covered there. A separate article about him would, considering all the sources that have covered him so far, put far too much undue weight on his mistake in the Holiday Bowl and would be unfair the remainder of whatever else he's done in his life. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • People contribute to history in different ways in to varying degrees. Not all articles on Wikipedia will be on subjects that have equally impacted history. Chris Jessie had a notable impact on a major college football game. His actions have been mentioned not only in all the sources cited in the article (15, last I checked) but by many more besides. His actions have been cited as the most bizzare occurance of an already-bizzare season. People will be talking about him for years at a minimum. When they come to Wikipedia to look up reliable information on him, they should not have to sort through an article on the Holiday Bowl in order to find him. We are here to create an informative encyclopedia and to serve our readers. Our readers are best served by keeping the article. Force10 (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, NeoXhaosX, you misread "undue weight". To quote, NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Therefore, by your own argument, if he is famous mainly for his action in the Holiday Bowl then his article should be mainly about the Holiday Bowl. Tangental facts such as what his birthday was and how many kids he has are completely irrelevant. We don't need to cover those sorts of things to cover the subject. Our article on him is sufficiently complete and useful as it stands now. Force10 (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not a football fan by any means, so I won't debate the noability of this entry, but I did find the entry interesting and would probably have not happened across it is it had been merged into a larger entry.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A bit unusual, but I think he's had enough media coverage that he meets some of our notability requirements. I wouldn't be opposed to a Redirect either, though; I just think an outright deletion is a poor call. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JKBrooks85's comments --IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - No notability outside the bowl game blunder, and coverage on the bowl game page should be sufficient. VegaDark (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Should be included in the article about the game but nothing more. Dincher (talk) 23:18, 3 January 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/Chris_Jessie&oldid=1128055140"