Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Ottney


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Brian Ottney

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ottney was just a run of the mill college player with no professional career. He got passing reference with his death, but not enough to pass GNG. He clearly fails the notability guidelines for American Football players. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG with in-depth coverage in national and regional media sources.  Per WP:NCOLLATH: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage."  The vast majority of college athletes do not pass this bar, but the coverage of Ottney is well past routine mentions in game coverage, etc.  Ottney easily passes the bar under the standards outlined both in WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. Coverage in this case includes: ESPN.com (national, 4 published stories about Ottney), Sports Illustrated (national), USA Today (2nd largest newspaper in US by circulation, multiple articles on Ottney), Los Angeles Times (4th largest newspaper in US by circulation), Chicago Tribune (10th largest newspaper in US by circulation), Detroit Free Press (23rd largest newspaper in US by circulation as shown here), The Detroit News,  and others.  This is not even to mention the far more extensive coverage in the local newspapers such as the Lansing State Journal and the Oakland Press.  Cbl62 (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I decided to take a crack at revising the article and have now done so. After doing so, it's clear, at least to me, that the nominator's statements that Ottney was a "run of the mill" player and that the coverage consists of "passing references" are not accurate. Cbl62 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * keep looks like a clear-cut case of passing WP:GNG to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even allowing for the fact that multiple articles are from the Associated Press and the same newspapers (and each newspaper, not each article, counts as reliable source for notability purposes), there still appears to be more than sufficient in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. When GNG is satisfied, the specific notability guidelines of WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON are irrelevant.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There're enough reliable independent (non-local) sources to write a comprehensive article.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. NorthAmerica1000 01:32, 4 August 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.