Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrett Chisolm


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Garrett Chisolm

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 05:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I found a some coverage of him only because of the tragedy which affected him. He did not receive this coverage as a notable football player, and the only non-tragedy-related stories are not enough to pass WP:GNG. He also fails WP:NSPORT, as he has yet to play in an NFL game.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I understand Eagles24/7's point, but I think there's enough enough to satisfy WP:GNG and with the national coverage (e.g., this story) he also passes WP:NCOLLATH #3.  The story is not simply that the kid had both of his parents die from cancer in the months before his senior year.  If that were it, there would be no argument.  The real story that attracted national media coverage is how this kid (the son of janitors) overcame adversity to become a star football player.  He was a walk-on at South Carolina who refused to quit and continued to play in his senior year following his parents' death.  He excelled on the field, helping South Carolina win its first ever SEC East championship, and being selected as a second-team All-SEC player (bear in mind the SEC is the most competitive conference is American college football). He also excelled academically such that he was a semi-finalist for the William V. Campbell Trophy as the sport's top scholar-athlete.  His is a remarkable and notable story that deservedly attracted national media attention.  His accomplishments and news coverage are enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH #3. Cbl62 (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The only significant coverage I see for Chisolm is because of his parents' deaths. If they did not die, do you think he'd still pass GNG in your opinion?  Eagles   24/7  (C)  03:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is he passes WP:GNG because he has had significant, non-trivial coverage. He had received a fair amount of media coverage even before his parents' death.  Being a second-team All-SEC player, helping USC win its first SEC East championship, his selection as a Campbell Trophy semifinalist, his nomination by Steve Spurrier for the Rudy Awards, and other achievements would have attracted additional coverage even if his parents hadn't died.  His personal triumph in achieving athletic and academic excellence despite the tragedy certainly made the story even more compelling.  But not every athlete who suffers tragedy receives this type of coverage.  It's a combination of his on-field and off-field achievements, the extensive news coverage, and overcoming tragedy, that makes Chisolm notable and his story so compelling. Cbl62 (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Cbl. He has convinced me that Chisholm is notable enough for an article. He's clearly not your WP:Run-of-the-mill player.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  02:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Eagles247, and I do find him to be WP:Run-of-the-mill vignette material with no lasting WP:IMPACT. Scholar athletes, perhaps unfortunately, are not notable in real-life and neither is a one-time second-team conference college player who was released from NFL practice squad. To (hopefully) save the standard rebuttals, I am knowingly overriding the "presumption" of notability in GNG, which itself allows a consensus to still determine a stand-alone article is not warranted in spite of the number of sources. I am referencing some essays and not guidelines which I find applicable, but don't persecute me as Wikipedia does not have firm rules aside from improving Wikipedia. I know deleting this article will be an uphill battle in that it is well-written and has citations.—Bagumba (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 15:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant    talk    03:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. His coverage -- for whatever reasons -- in RSs is to my mind sufficient to meet GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2011 (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.