Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Williams (American football)

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Williams (American football)[edit]

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

The article makes no assertion of notability. Nathan Williams was an undrafted free agent who was released before playing a single snap of professional football. That's not enough to satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON and there isn't sufficient non-routine coverage or accomplishment to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. There are dozens of such prospective NFL players every year and they aren't notable for being on the preseason team. Further, as an article about a player not in the news (because he's not playing) it's not being updated. At the time I encountered the article on October 30 it still claimed he played for Miami, even though he'd been released over two months ago. In sum, it's a non-notable stub with no prospect of expansion. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to this simple web search there appear to be many, many newsworthy articles mentioning the subject. At this volume of content there is clear interest in the individual and clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS specifically lists that argument as one to avoid. Any player for a Division I football team is going to show up in Google News results. It signifies nothing. Before nominating Williams I consulted his Ohio State profile. Despite being a puff piece it recorded no school records by him, nor no national awards. Before nominating this I also, anticipating that you would make this very post, trawled through the first five pages of Google News hits. It's all trivial mention in game coverage. None of these articles are about him as an individual. Mackensen (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're misunderstanding. WP:GOOGLEHITS refers to simply saying that there are "X number" of Google hits and therefore it is notable. What I've stated is that a simple google search has yielded a good number of news websites covering the subject. That's different. One says "lots of hits on anything" another says "lots of coverage in legitimate sources" -- oh, and WP:N does not require that the subject of a news article be the same as the subject of a Wikipedia article to establish notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than routine coverage an NCAA athlete would receive as Mackensen mentioned above. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NGRIDIRON and NCOLLATH. Coverage is just routine sports reporting.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Coverage is simply routine information. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment coverage is far and away above routine sports coverage of basic box scores. See essay WP:NOTROUTINE for more details.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's info out there that isn't in the article, which is rather surprising as this person got a fair bit of coverage as a freshman for a shoplifting charge. So that plus in-depth coverage such as this article tips it into WP:GNG passage. Tarc (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Routine coverage of a Division 1 collegiate player. Not sufficient for a GNG pass, in my estimation, nor are criteria for the low bar for pro athletes met. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tarc. I wouldn't say he passes WP:NGRIDIRON, but with the shoplifting thing and the routine coverage I'd say he squeaks by the general notability guideline. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think a shoplifting charge is regular routine coverage, and everything else is general coverage, fails WP:GNG (more coverage than most but still fails) and WP:ATHLETE. We need to stop with that heavy inclusionism of keeping borderline notable BLPs. Secret ^account 14:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shoplifting is very common and many places cover the names of people who are charged and convicted with crimes. Bottom line is his athletic career and it doesn't warrant notability WP:ATHLETE PeteBaltar (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tarc. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:54, 5 November 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) 01:21, 11 November 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete We wouldn't bother with an article on a shoplifter were he not already notable, and as far as sports are concerned this guy just didn't cut it. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH, and hasn't received enough coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:15, 30 November 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.