Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damario Ambrose


 * 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. A good argument was made but without the sources to support it. J04n(talk page) 00:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Damario Ambrose

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This isn't my usual field, so perhaps I do not understand, but it appears to me that the subject has not yet had a professional career, and the references do not appear to meet the gng as more than routine notices. It was accepted from AfC, perhaps unwisely. There are quite a number of other  articles on people with similarly non-notable careers, also accepted from AfC.  DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete can't remember why this articles's on my 'watchlist', however, he only seems to have had a career in University football therefore fails WP:NSPORTS criteria. Sionk (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete since has not played an AFL game (http://www.arenafootball.com/sports/a-footbl/aflbrn/mtt/ambrose_damario00.html) and thus fails WP:N(s).Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the subject does not pass WP:NSPORTS and that the article references are lacking. However, there is in my opinion significant widespread coverage from multiple regions around the US on the subject from just his college career.  This is more than enough to pass WP:GNG.  I'm seeing newspaper reports from Montana to Indiana to Boston for a linebacker from Arkansas.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The relationship between the GNG and the specific notability guidelines is at our option, and it is different in different cases whether the specific guideline is an alternative or a limitation. In the case of NSPORTS I consider NSPORTS a limitation on the GNG as well as an alternative to it. But that is essentially the question before us.  DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Both sides have valid reasoning. I leave it to the closer to see which way consensus swings on this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While I don't have time currently to look into the Damario Ambrose case, it is inaccurate to say that WP:NSPORTS is a limitation on WP:GNG. It has long been recognized that college football players who never play a game of professional football can qualify under WP:GNG, i.e., if they have been the subject of significant, non-routine coverage in the mainstream media. Cbl62 (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cbl62. See reasoning at WP:ABELINCOLN.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree they can qualify, if they win national-level awards. He does not appear to have done so.  DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that would be an additional method, but I don't believe that there is any reason to just forget WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. As per Truth or consequences-2 above. 1292simon (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (but not for reasons stated above). The comments of DGG and other above appear to reflect a belief that an athlete who does not satisfy WP:ATH is excludable without regard to WP:GNG. This is plainly incorrect. The introduction to WP:ATH expressly states: "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline."  For this reason, it has long been recognized (in dozens and dozens of past AfDs) that college football players who have received significant coverage in mainstream, independent media sources qualify under WP:GNG regardless of whether they have won a national award, played pro ball, etc.  See, e.g., Travis Cole, Mike Nesbitt, Chase Pittman, Walter Mendenhall, Al Blades, Kirk Cousins, Joe Iacone. If they pass WP:GNG, that's sufficient.  In this case, however, I am not finding significant, non-trivial coverage of Ambrose in mainstream media sources.  Accordingly, deletion appears to be appropriate, not for the reasons given above, but because Ambrose doesn't appear to satisfy either WP:ATH or WP:GNG. I do respect Paul M.'s judgment on these matters, and if he can point to specific instances of significant coverage (i.e., not mere passing references in game coverage), I'd reconsider my "delete" vote. Cbl62 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2013 (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.