Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julius Dawkins


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Julius Dawkins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a courtesy nomination raised on request of the subject, Julius Dawkins, via. The rationale submitted in the OTRS ticket is used below with Julius' consent.

I would like to start this discussion with, for reasons I do not want to disclose. The existence of my article puts my family and myself safety at risk. Because the information in it might be used to trace my family and trace me, and while it is available elsewhere at the moment. It would tremendously help my family and especially me to feel more secure. I have asked the NFL to remove my information for the same reasons. They immediately remove my whole profile from their website. I truly hope you will do the same!!!! Nthep (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment So... how are we supposed to treat this? Do we take his plea into account? Ignore it and !vote based on policies and guidelines? Or is it up to our own individual discretions? Lizard  (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment this is intriguing. I checked the policy (WP:BIODELETE) and it says:


 * Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed. If a deletion discussion of any biographical article (of whether a well known or less known individual) has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, then the closing editor may generally treat the nomination as a PROD.[1]


 * I would take this to mean that it will be deleted according to the request, unless there is a particularity good reason to keep it, that would have to be the article subject is 'notable' and a 'public figure', and the article would have to be well sourced.
 * I can't tell if he is 'notable' or a 'public figure' because that is dictated by a subject specific guideline I know little about, and he is an American football player which I also know nothing about. However, the article is not well sourced, and since the subject has gone to the lengths to actively remove sources, it may be hard to find more. I would say the article should probably be deleted for this reason, though simply removing all unsourced information and adding references could fix this.
 * I was under the impression that America was quite safe, I don't understand how or why there is a risk issue involved, and if there is a valid protection issue, I understand that the WikiMedia Foundation could oversighter the article for legal reasons without an AfD, so I will ignore that entirely. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Well, he meets WP:NGRIDIRON by having played in the NFL. He also had a pretty decent college football career. He's definitely Wikipedia notable; he probably isn't real life notable. So I'd say he falls under "relatively unknown, non-public figure." Lizard  (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The term public figure has legal meaning under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. and their progeny. I don't know if there's case law directly on point, but at least one supposed expert (here) has stated: "A semi-professional football player, for instance, may not be considered a public figure though he may be known to many people within the region his team represents. However, someone who plays football in the NFL is most likely a public figure, due to his national prominence." Aside from having played in the NFL, Dawkins was a first-team All-American. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep how do we know this is on the level? Did the person who submitted the UTRS ticket prove his identity? The subject passes the notability guidelines quite clearly, and the information in the article is all 25+ years old. It's not like we are telling people where he lives now. Lepricavark (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To answer Did the person who submitted the UTRS ticket prove his identity? - yes. Nthep (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep with 3 caveats. Clearly passes multiple notability standards, including WP:NGRIDIRON (played in NFL), WP:NCOLLATH (first-team All-American), and WP:GNG (significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Also, as noted above, I doubt he qualifies as a "non-public figure." More importantly, I fail to see how Wikipedia's publication of information about his football career which ended 34 years ago could threaten his safety or allow him to be traced.  This information is widely available from multiple on-line sources, including Pro-Football-Reference.com (here), SR/College Football (here), ArenaFan.com (here), and Pro Football Archives (here). Further, Dawkins' assertion that the NFL removed his "whole profile" from its web site is simply untrue.  His profile remains at nfl.com (here) though date and place of birth are absent. The concessions I would suggest are to (i) remove his date and place of birth from the article (as was done at nfl.com), as those pieces of data could be used for tracing purposes, (ii) prohibit adding information about his current details (which are presently absent and should not be added); and (iii) protecting the article so it can only be edited by registered users. With those caveats, I support keeping the article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I just read Mr. Dawkins' comments at the talk page. His primary concern appears to be with DOB and place of residence. This reinforces my belief that the three restrictions I proposed above are appropriate measures. I would also be fine with a higher level of page protection. I have removed the year of birth and place of birth from the article during the pendency of this discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cbl's reasoning and caveats. Lizard  (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry but this is a bit silly and a little over dramatic on the part of Dawkins. Just being honest here.--Yankees10 17:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, without the caveats. Easily meets WP:NGRIDIRON by playing in 27 games with the Buffalo Bills of the National Football League. Also passes WP:NCOLLATH as a first-team All-American college football player. The information in question is basic biographical data on a public figure that is readily and easily available elsewhere on the web. I fail to see how posting a birthdate and place of birth could possibly pose any type of security issue. It's not like we're putting his social security number out there or anything. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per ignore all rules -- If the family is at risk (and I will assume good faith in his comments) then we can remove the article. I'd rather keep it, but sometimes you just say "what the hey"--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cbl3, with date and place of birth removed. I would also suggest removing the high school information which is not all that easily available.  But the remainder of the article is very public and easily accessible.  I would suggest that the subject also contact Pro Football Reference if there is an issue, because some of the information that may be troubling is listed there. Rlendog (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the high school information, per my comment above. If there is any other information that could be used to trace the subject or create a security threat I would be happy to remove that too.  But right now I think it is generic information that exceeds what actually still remains of the nfl.com profile in that it mentions a sentence about his college career, which I think would be troubling to remove since he was an All-American and thus thus this information is widely and easily accessible with or without Wikipedia, and a sentence about the Arena Football League, which was professional and again not difficult to discover outside Wikipedia but since that is a lower level than the NFL I think we can remove that if it is really causing a problem for the subject. Rlendog (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BIODELETE; the subject has requested deletion and we should honour that. The article's subject is of marginal notability, while the article contains minimal encyclopedically relevant prose, enough to confirm that the subject exists. The presence of his article on Wikipedia does not add that much; its absence would not harm the project -- while it may harm the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Contrary to individual's assertions, the NFL has not removed his bio from their website. This gives me serious doubts about the credibility of the message, or its origin. Smartyllama (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Although note what happens when you click on the "Profile" tab, . I presume that used to bring up a written biography. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As part of the OTRS exchange I have seen the confirmation from the NFL that content has been removed from their website. Nthep (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. publicffigure, and I cannot imagine any possible danger from the material presently in the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 10 February 2018 (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.