Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Clemons


 * 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. I think consensus is that Division III athletes do not pass WP:ATHLETE; he also does not seem to have made a real "national" record. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  20:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Chaz Clemons

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Tagged for failing notability since May 2009, his sporting achievements fail WP:NSPORTS. One news source I found is this, but I don't find that sufficient to pass WP:GNG. All the other sources seem to be just listings of results, which is why I'd like to start a discussion about it. Bigger digger (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd think a 6 time NCAA champion is notable per WP:NSPORTS. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting, but I don't think your assertion is particularly valid. None of the points at WP:NSPORTS mention NCAA competition, they're more concerned with international competition. I think finding WP:Reliable sources would be a better route to establishing notability but I can't find anything sufficient. Bigger digger (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jujutacular  talk 18:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards delete. The nominator makes solid points and I can't find a reliable source that has other information about him.  ceran  thor 01:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not sure what exactly the issue is with reliable sources but his championships are all easily verified from a Google search, so it would be trivial for someone to add those to the page.  76.99.122.143 (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep notability is not a matter of counting references. A reliable reference to something that qualifies a person for notability  is sufficient, and it's present.  It's clear that, unlike professional competition, or international competition like the Olympics,  merely being on a college team is not sufficient. But being a national champion I think reasonably is.     DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to count references. WP:NSPORTS doesn't find him notable as athletes must have "won their country's senior national championship" or finished well at international competitions. There are 10 separate points for which a track and field athlete can be considered notable and Clemons doesn't meet any of them. My search for references is to get him through WP:GNG but finding only one source, there isn't in-depth coverage from multiple sources. Bigger digger (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. You'll notice that WP:NSPORTS doesn't mention collegiate athletes at all, even in major sports like basketball or football.  In other words, collegiate athletes aren't inherently notable by the mere fact of being collegiate athletes, but they can be notable if they receive enough media attention.  76.99.122.143 (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Clarifying the above, it doesn't mention them at all as inherently notable but "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics."  Winning an individual award is listed as a criterion and an individual national championship is certainly an "award."  76.99.122.143 (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Clemons ran in Div III of NCAA competition, but NSPORTS requires Div I winners. Bigger digger (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting note: this has been relisted once more per the nominator's request on my talk page.  Jujutacular  talk 18:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I was asked to take another look. I had not noticed that it was Lincoln University that he competed for, and that this school is in division III. This does make a difference. (I'm not sure to what degree the WP:Sports guidelines are fully accepted by the general community, but this particular distinction certainly makes sense to me.) But the article says he held for a time the national record for 100m --was this a true national record, or just for Division III?   DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no way his time of 10.19 seconds on the 100m dash is a national record, as several Americans have run it under 10s. Following the source given for that claim, it's clear it's a school record.  So that detail is inaccurate .  Let me amend my statement.  10.19 is most certainly not an national collegiate record, as I mention below.  I would guess it is the division III record though I cannot find an independent source backing that up.  In any case, setting a division III record is not notable in and of itself IMO. --Johnsemlak (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick Google search revealed that the collegiate record on 2007 was 9.92.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say he fails NSPORTS, which is really the relevant criteria. I would be wary of applying NSPORTS to a sport besides basketball or American football--it appears those guidelines were written with those sports in mind and there a massive difference in the notability of College football and college track and field, let alone Division III track and field.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I wouldn't even think there'd be a question about it. WP:ATHLETE has traditionally focused on the "highest level" of play, whether professional or amateur.  The "highest level of play" in track and field is plainly Olympic- and world-class competition.  Alright, no, this fellow hasn't done that.  He didn't even compete in the highest collegiate level available.  This should be a no-brainer.   Ravenswing  18:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Highest level of competition; Division III. That's the third highest college level in the US. No int'l competition. AFD template is missing from article. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - All these Wikipedia editor subjective personal opinions about his importance miss the point. There is plenty of reliable biographical source material on the Chaz Clemons topic to develop an article, such as published by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette beginning with the May 29, 1997 article IN FIRST SEASON, WILKINSBURG SPRINTER GAINS REPUTATION devoted to Clemons and his life up to that point. There also is WILKINSBURG'S CLEMONS TAKES SILVER IN 100 May 27, 1998. WILKINSBURG ATHLETE SPRINTING TO FAME AT LINCOLN (April 18, 2001). WILKINSBURG GRAD CLEMONS IS STILL TEARING UP THE TRACK (June 12, 2002). That was only after a quick search. The reliable sources felt Chaz Clemons notable enough to include in their publication and a Wikipedia editor's subjective personal opinion should not be more important than the decisions made by the reliable sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are local sources. According to the WP:BLP WP:POLICY, "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article". Abductive  (reasoning) 16:29, 30 November 2010 (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.