Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devin Bush


 * 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) Mkativerata (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Devin Bush

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD was removed with the rationale "there are sources in the infobox". First, I don't care if there are "sources" in the infobox. For a BLP there need to be sources for every para in the text. Second, these aren't "sources" these are just generic external links. This is a BLP. Either do your job as a serious encyclopedia editor or get out of the way and let this be deleted, per WP:BLP. If you don't have the time to take an article seriously, don't make the encyclopedia suffer its presence. Note: yes, these are all very valid arguments for deletion per WP:BLP, WP:NOTABILITY is secondary. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator - reliable sources provided.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:Civil... Anways guy was a first round NFL draft pick and played in games, therefore he passes WP:Athlete.--Yankees10 06:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 21.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 06:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep would seem to meet WP:GRIDIRON. There also seems to have been a misinterpretation of policy. WP:BLP states, "All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion.". At least one statement, not "each and every statement". Please also see WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: He is clearly notable. As for verification, some of the facts were already supported by the links in the infobox (one of which is now used in a shiny ref tag). Then I did a google search and added two citations to local newspapers. Not all the facts are yet supported but it does not now warrant deletion. I question whether the nominator did their WP:BEFORE, as I found those sources relatively easily. BethNaught (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As per above and Passes WP:Athlete.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - The subject clearly satisfies the specific notability guideline of WP:NGRIDIRON, having played in 116 regular season NFL games across eight seasons. That having been said, at the time of this AfD nomination, there was not a single in-line source in the entire article, and therefore it was a BLP violation and subject to deletion.  Now that several editors have added multiple in-line footnotes verifying the subject's NFL career, I would ask the nominator to graciously withdraw his nomination.  NGRIDIRON is clearly satisfied -- it's not even close at 116 games -- and the BLP concerns are resolved.  Let's not waste any more time on this particular AfD; there are much harder cases that need our attention.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep -- What dirt said. The AfD served its BLP-driven purpose and should now be withdrawn.Cbl62 (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Stats linked to in the article confirmed that Bush played for eight seasons in the NFL, and was a Super Bowl champion (to say nothing of his having won a national championship in college, as well). WP:BEFORE, anyone? Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In fairness to the nominator, EJ, the issue was not notability, but the failure to source a BLP -- unsourced BLPs are subject to deletion per WP:BLP, but that problem is now resolved. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Dirtlawyer, this was clearly a pointy, bad-faith nomination. Let's face it, this was a BS, garbage, time-wasting AfD nomination, plain and simple. And I feel that the nominator should be called to task for that. This was as clear a keep as you could possibly find, on multiple levels. Again, what about WP:BEFORE? Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep especially in light of new sources added. I'd like to think the nominator was only trying to generate a discussion that would lead to better sourcing of BLPs going forward, but the fact that he started with a PROD (which is "discussionless") makes me doubt it.  I get irritated by people deleting correct, non-controversial articles and information from the encyclopedia without trying to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.  To me, that goes against the idea of creating a better encyclopedia. Rikster2 (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, quite the opposite is the case. PRODs get peoples; attention. As do AfDs. This BLP sat there unsourced for seven freakin' years. WP:SOFIXIT is a lame excuse, I can't fix everything that's wrong with Wikipedia, obviously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, you started with a mechanism where an article can be deleted without discussion, then "settled" for AfD after the PROD was removed (and complained about it). No, you can't fix everything that is wrong with Wikipedia (join the club), but in the time you took to PROD then AfD this article you certainly could have added a source or tagged it as needing sources or put a note on WP:NFL and said "this thing has no sources, somebody who knows this stuff go fix it."  Rikster2 (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's actually not true, but anyway, the point is moot.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's absoutely true, but you're right, it's moot now. Thanks for doing the right thing and withdrawing the nomination. Rikster2 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note - now that reliable sources have been added, I'm happy to withdraw this nomination.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:14, 22 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.