Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Peterman

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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Peterman[edit]

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

Contested prod. My reasoning is that Peterman has never played in the NFL, the references currently consist of two dead links and a LinkedIn profile, and he fails both WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. He has won a sportsmanship award, but it doesn't appear to have been a particularly notable one. The editor who contested the prod gave this as an example of significant coverage, but it looks pretty routine to me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Coverage appears simply routine articles about his college playing days. The link to his NFL page clearly indicates that he does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON, and the article gives no indication that he passes WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Peterman finished his career at Northwestern as the program's #4 receiver of all time with over 2,000 receiving yards; he was also a Big Ten Medal of Honor winner and won the national college football sportsmanship award (see here). More importantly, he garnered significant, non-routine coverage in multiple, reliable media outlets. A lengthy feature story like (1) this in the Chicago Tribune (one of the largest and most prominent newspapers in the United States) is actually the antithesis of routine coverage. Passing mentions in game coverage or short announcements of an injury/signing/release might be classified as "routine" coverage but not a feature story focusing on the individual. He has also received significant coverage in national media outlets, including (2) this, (3) this, and (4) this from ESPN.com and (5) this from USA Today. Further examples of significant coverage include (6) this feature story on Peterman from the Daily Herald, (7) this feature story and this, (8) this and (9) this from The State Journal-Register, (10) this from Devil's Lake Journal, and (11) this feature story from Wicked Local. With this level of coverage, Peterman passes WP:GNG and arguably also passes the third prong of WP:NCOLLATH ("Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team"). Cbl62 (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Is there any difference between WP:NCOLLATH's "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team" and WP:GNG's "significant coverage" standard. Given the obvious ambiguity of the NCOLLATH "prong", I've typically ignored it and focused on the more concrete standard of GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've always taken the third prong of NCOLLATH to be an acknowledgement that there is a lower quantum required for "national coverage" than local coverage. That is consistent with my take on WP:GNG, i.e., the more localized the coverage (e.g., small town newspaper < major metropolitan daily newspaper < regional publications < national publications), the greater quantum of coverage I would expect in order to satisfy GNG. Sort of a sliding scale in terms of how much coverage is needed depending on how widely-published the sources are. Cbl62 (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep based on passing WP:GNG and Cbl62's research. Great job!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2015 (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.