Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Beatty


 * 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris Beatty

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable assistant coach of college level sports. Does not meet criteria for Notability_(sports). — raeky ( talk 10:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a message for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football to comment here, they might have some ideas on what to do. Hiding T 11:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Like find several reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage about him? — raeky ( talk 12:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or add to the discussion. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and let's just keep an open mind.  That tends to be the best plan. Hiding T 13:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He was a professional CFL player, having played for the Baltimore Stallions and Hamilton Tiger-Cats; therefore, meeting the requirements of WP:ATHLETE. – LATICS   talk  13:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to the CFL player factor, I believe being a position coach at a major, D-I FBS program in a BCS conference is notable. Many of those coaches at that level are interchangeable with their NFL counterparts (and transition to-and-from quite regularly).  --Bobak (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Notability_(sports) being an assistant coach at college level isn't enough alone. But the CFL is likely enough to meet the requirements of WP:ATHLETE. — raeky ( talk 20:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it says being a well-known assistant coach in college football is good for notability --which would include the definition I made above, if only slightly more specific. --Bobak (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats the key term "well known" meaning hes received non-trivial media coverage, JUST being an assistant coach isn't enough alone, you also need the non-trivial media coverage. But I think the point is moot since he played for CFL so probably meets WP:ATHLETE — raeky ( talk 20:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As a fan of college football, I'm not sure if I would consider him well-known. But then again, many assistants aren't well known outside of their region of the country, even the bigger ones. :s – LATICS   talk  20:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, no contest if he actually played during his time in the CFL. However, I couldn't find definitive proof that he did, and, if someone can show that he did not actually play in a CFL game, then I would change my vote. I disagree with saying that all positional coaches in the BCS are notable. Strikehold (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Raeky, in all these recent AFDs, you keep referring to that essay, which clearly states that it was rejected by the community as not meeting consensus. Why do you keep using it as a metric? Strikehold (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yea, but virtually everything I nominated I was modern day people (BLP's) and I felt that they did not meet the criteria of WP:BIO let alone anything special for an athlete. I'd rather see borderline pages discussed here for their merit then to just keep everything in blind faith. — raeky ( talk 07:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that notability of athletes is currently governed by whether they can meet either WP:N or WP:ATH. Strikehold (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More specifically WP:BIO and WP:ATH, and yes I agree. This probably isn't a prime example, I did overlook the sentence about his CFL involvement, but the bulk of what I nominated for PROD or AfD genuinely didn't meet WP:BIO or WP:ATH. Just playing college level sports isn't notable. — raeky ( talk 08:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Added refs showing Canadian connection.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see any evidence at all that he played in a regular season CFL game. The two news sources that Sumoeagle179 linked are promotional articles of the new staff, which isn't a reliable source. It seems more likely that he was cut before the pre-season of the CFL. Can't find nothing at all on google news or the Baltimore Sun archives from 1995-1997 that he played a game with the CFL. The only source I found was that Beatty signed with the Florida Bobcats and was soon released in the preseason back in 1996. Until any sources show he played in a regular season game, the CFL stats fail WP:V, thurfore he fails WP:ATHLETE. Secret account 16:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I noted the same points, but voted "Keep" because I think we should err on the side of caution. Clearly, he was "on" two CFL teams, to say he never played is speculation. I spent some time searching, and I cannot find any good compilation or databases of all-time CFL players (like Pro Football Reference or Database Football for the NFL). Strikehold (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I Don't think we should "err on the side of caution" with BLP's. If no sources exist to say he played a regular season game, then it seems pretty clear cut? — raeky ( talk 20:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We should err on the side of caution when not doing so means deleting someone's work and removing useful and correct information, purely due to speculation. This isn't about something potentially libelous if untrue (and in fact, everything in the article is true according to sources), so being a BLP is irrelevant. Multiple sources confirm he spent two years in the CFL; none found as of yet show that he doesn't meet WP:ATH. Waivers and releases of NFL players are regularly reported in the media. I'm sure the same happens for CFL players in Canadian media, so if it happened, it exists somewhere. Until further information is found, the article should stay. Strikehold (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Non-admin closure, you can't close it, it's not clear consensus to keep! Theres several people here that think it should be deleted. — raeky</i> ( talk 11:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with a non-admin closure, but let's not exaggerate: There are not "several people here that think it should be deleted." There was one person other than the nominator (you) who voted delete. Strikehold (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —Strikehold (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2009 (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.