Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry J. Sanders


 * 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-administrator closure.) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Barry J. Sanders

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable college football player. Only claim to notability is his association to his father Barry Sanders. Natg 19 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG - Has not played in a professional league, has not gained significant notability while playing college football. Some media interest due to famous relative and future possibilities does not make subject relevant. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Having read the links provided below I am changing my vote to keep, per Bradkoch2007. I feel that the links provided below should be in the article. If anyone feels like doing it feel free, if not I will see if I have some time this weekend. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Taketa + sources added SmileBlueJay97 talk 03:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I had no problem finding significant coverage in the New York Times, SF Chronicle, San Jose Mercury-News, Bleacher Report, Fox Sports West, NBC Bay Area... All on the first page of a simple Google search for BARRY + SANDERS + STANFORD (see below). Please don't make this argument, while there may be a potential basis for a notability challenge on family relationships, there certainly is no lack of substantial published coverage, which is massive. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userfy if someone wants it. I agree that there really isn't enough third party reliable coverage to surpass the notability threshhold at this time.  However, I would be shocked if this continues through the end of next season.  No prejudice to recreate should the subject surpass the notability threshhold in the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:FLIPFLOP to Keep I did not find those sources the first time around, but there they are! I make it a point to change my mind and agree with Carrite and Dirtlawyer1 whenever they are right.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - With all due respect to, articles such as THIS from the San Francisco Chronicle, and THIS from Bleacher Report, and THIS from Fox Sports West, and THIS from the San Jose Mercury News, and THIS from the New York Times, and THIS from NBC Bay Area in addition to sources showing in the piece and dozens of other possible articles on the internet and in print indicates that this subject already easy passes our General Notability Guideline, which calls for multiple, substantial, published pieces of coverage in so-called "reliable" sources. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note to closing administrator: don't count noses, count sources. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clear "keep" !vote after reviewing the articles linked by Carrite above, most of which feature Sanders as the primary subject, and thereby satisfying the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. As an aside, Carrite, we usually do not accept reader-submitted content, such as that found on Bleacher Report, as a reliable source.  Nice work other than that.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re the aside, some of the "lead writers" on Bleacher Report are paid professionals whose work may qualify as RS. (See, , for example.) I do tend to avoid it as a source because of the lack of clarity, but I note that this particular article is written by such a lead writer. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - While I don't discount the many sources found about Sanders, his notability derives from the fact that he is the son of a Hall of Fame running back. These articles would not exist otherwise. I don't believe that Sanders has done anything notable on his own (ex. winning a national award, or setting a record) that warrants his own article. Natg 19 (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG does not require any particular accomplishments; it only requires significant coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * - WP:INHERITED (which is not a guideline) states the norm that "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article." -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, Taketa. There is more than ample independent coverage of Sanders, Jr., by himself, to satisfy GNG.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - How much of his notability is originally derived from his father's has become irrelevant - deserved or not, the younger has become a publicly known figure with substantial press coverage about his current status and future opportunities. Bradkoch2007 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdraw by nominator - I am withdrawing this nomination due to the !votes and arguments for Keep above. Natg 19 (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.