Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald R. Mitchell


 * 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 Speedy keep, obvious WP:POINT nomination here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Donald R. Mitchell

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable football player. Formulafiftypoet 15:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- Passes WP:BIO's section on athletes. ChrisLamb 15:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per BIO, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Nothing notable, except for showing up and drawing a paycheck, has been asserted about this player's brief and uncelebrated career. Formulafiftypoet 15:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:If he had sat the bench for his entire career I would agree with you but he played in 44 regular season games and 6 play-off games he did more than come and collect a paycheck, I stand by my Keep vote. ChrisLamb 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and close. Seems to be a pointy nomination, as the nom's only other presence in AfD land has been in Articles for deletion/Jessica Smith (poet) (immediately below this in today's log). Deor 15:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your only argument seems to be your inability to assume good faith. Formulafiftypoet 15:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My argument is that WP guidelines and ample precedent have established that any athlete who has played even one game at a professional level is notable. Nominating an obvious keeper because an article that one has created has been AfD'd is, however, not acceptable behavior. Deor 15:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In my attempt to create articles on poets and critics, I have been told numerous times that citing "precedent" is invalid. See . Formulafiftypoet 15:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is so why do we have a page that list some AFD precedent? (See WP:AFDP) ChrisLamb 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I defer to DGG, an administrator, on this one. Formulafiftypoet 16:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - played two full seasons and most of a third at his sports highest level in the world. Kicks WP:BIO through the uprights, not to mention super strong precedent on Wikipedia.  -CosmicPenguin (Talk) 15:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, easily passes the criteria listed in WP:BIO. The timing and substance of this nomination does cast a pretty heavy shadow of WP:POINT and should likely be closed as soon as possible. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - American Football is the top level of his sport, and he has played a few seasons. However, as I've been led to believe, Wikipedia's general notability criteria (WP:N) usually supersedes specific notability criteria within genres. What I mean is, a US football player is notable only if he's been the subject of third-party non-trivial coverage. I've even had it explained to me recently (in AfD) that the prevailing opinion is that simple coverage is not sufficient - there must be third-party assertion of notability, such that we could assume that (say) 10 years from now this person will still be considered notable. And as well, note that WP:BIO is only a guideline, not policy - "a fair test", as it says. So, is there any proof that he's not just a football player (of which each team carries what, 70?), but that he's a notable one? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete comment - also, regarding Formulafiftypoet: this person has over 500 edits in Wikipedia, as of now-ish. Perhaps the AfD nomination of Jessica Smith (poet) has just driven this user to become more involved in the deletion side of work here, instead of just content editing. It may be that this article was nominated just to prove a point - but, at the same time, I think the point brought up is illustrative. If a poet isn't notable just for writing poetry, why should a football player be notable just for being on a roster? Instruction creep has been infecting Wikipedia a bit, I think, to the point where soon we're going to have dozens of different criteria for notability depending on genre - until, 5 years from now, the harried editors that remain will finally see a problem and start a tedious task of deleting 100,000 articles on unknown poets, indie bands, and athletes. Anyway - I'm not voting, I just wanted to inspire some friendly discussion on this. Yeah, I should actually vote on this. Prove he is a notable football player, and I'll change my mind. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He has played in 44 regular season games and 6 play-off games that clearly meets WP:BIO's requirments for athletes ChrisLamb 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that that's in WP:BIO. However, WP:BIO even says that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; however, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Also, notability is not temporary, according to WP:N, which I've been told by others was a more important criterion than WP:BIO - so then the question is, will he be remembered as a notable player, 10 years from now? I'd be happy to change my vote if there was some assertion, somewhere, that he's a notable player, and not just a player. Is he, like, as good as Joe Namath? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the Boeing 787 better then the Queen Elizabeth 2? Its very difficult to rate players at different positions in different eras, and besides we don't do that here.  All we determine is if the player has met a certain level of notablity, and given that the player meets WP:N and WP:V, we've further set that bar at "playing in the highest level".  You might disagree that the bar is too low, and thats a discussion for another place, but generally, where do you draw the line?  Super bowl players? (which omits Barry Sanders).  All-stars?  Starters?  What is your standard for notability, if simply making it to, and playing in, the league isn't enough? - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 18:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't know. I'd say WP:N requires permanent notability, not just being listed on a roster or in daily game stats (which I'd think would be considered "trivial mention"). Has anyone, say, written a full-page article on him for the local paper? That might prove at least transitory notability. Did he tackle someone hard enough to break the guy's leg and end his career? That'd prove notability, especially if it was a name player that was injured. At the same time, okay, I admit: now I'm arguing about Wikipedia policies, and not addressing the merits of this particular article. The closing admin will probably discount my vote, anyway; and I'd rather the speedy keeps win this debate anyway, given the WP:POINT situation. But I did want to present my own opinion, so I did. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and close. Two parts to this.  I am calling keep in this !vote because of a precedent I've observed: players in pro league sports become notable when they leave the bench for the playing field.  Mr. Mitchell has.  I'm calling speedy keep and close because of teh nominator's actions - very much WP:POINT, and because of the actions from the user (review their stuff in his contributions log), I can no longer assume good faith on this user's part. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * despite my own vote above, I also completely agree with you re: WP:POINT. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Clearly meets WP:BIO standard for athletes: "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis", as demonstrated with sources provided in the article. notability has been demonstrated. Alansohn 17:43, 20 July 2007 (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.