Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Johnson (American football)


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

David Johnson (American football)

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

This guy is not in the NFL or even in any pro league. He fails WP:ATHLETE. Plus all the stuff in this article is wikipuffery. John Asfukzenski (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:Athlete and a professional career is irrelevant, as he clearly passes WP:GNG and the basic criterion of WP:BIO ("presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"), as established by the sources cited in the article. "Wikipuffery" is a term coined in an essay that has no weight as a guideline or policy. Moreover, there is no such thing as described in that essay in the article; it contains only factual statements without "exaggeration". Johnson has had feature articles in numerous newspapers: The Albuquerque Journal, The Oregonian, The Tulsa World, The Birmingham News, and The Mobile Press-Register. He was also considered a Heisman Trophy prospect during the 2008 season by The New York Times, The News & Observer, and CBS Sports. Additionally, Google News has 380 hits for "'David Johnson' + Tulsa + quarterback" since 2004. Here are more sources qualifying as "significant coverage" in varying degrees: The Press-Register, ESPN, The Daily Oklahoman, The Oklahoman, USA Today, ESPN, The Register-Guard, The Tulsa World, The Seattle Times, The Oklahoman, The Tulsa Beacon, The Associated Press. Strikehold (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strikehold's remark appears to have concluded the matter. It's very hard to argue with that.  A candidate for snow keep, perhaps?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  12:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Strikehold's sources make it clear that he passes WP:GNG.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 13:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:ATHLETE doesn't bar an athlete from proving notability in the usual way, it only sets out which persons are considered automatically notable. The fact that the NYT was following him as part of its "Heisman Watch" is evidence enough of significant coverage outside of local sources.  Mandsford (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sourcing and C-USA offensive player of the year award. matt91486 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-sourced, neutrally-written article. I don't see any puffery here. --Esprqii (talk) 03:08, 24 August 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.