Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeley Dorsey (3rd nomination)


 * 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 delete. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeley Dorsey
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neutral As per whatever the result of Articles for deletion/Mickey Renaud (2nd nomination) is. I don't want to restate much and much of my arguement is there. I view it as heavily biased to keep this aticle and delete Renaud, considering the fact that the one main notability factor of each is their deaths. Editorofthewiki 03:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedily close debate. This nomination appears to be no more than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No two people are alike, and binding two different articles to the same outcome is ridiculous. There have already been two debates on this article. Give it a rest and let this ride for a time. 220.253.70.211 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The two peopleare alike in the way that they were junior athletes whe died -- and very little else, in the case of Dorsey. BTW, how many times did it take toget Daniel Brandt deleted? Editorofthewiki 03:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize we were keeping score. A better question might be how many times were the same arguments rehashed over and over again, before the proponents of keeping foo-bar-article got tired of defending it?. Neier (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree this is nothing more than a WP:OTHERSTUFF nom, I have to agree with the nom in that this person never played at the professional level therefore should fail WP:BIO. On those grounds, delete. Travellingcari (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My heart goes out to his family and friends, but Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - bad faith nomination, and still meets WP:BIO as there are multiple RS with significant coverage, and this person (as covered under athlete criteria) played at the top level of amateur American style football, Div. I college football. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How does "he was not a major recruit" translate into "played at the top level"?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 07:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly as I wrote: "played at the top level of amateur American style football, Div. I college football." As in he played Division I football, and that is the highest amateur level of that sport. It's not Heisman Trophy winners only, its anyone who has played Div. I football if they also have the coverage in RS, as you can read all about at WP:BIO. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally don't have any objection to keeping this article, but only if Renaud gets one as he did much more than this guy. If the afd closes as a keep, I will close this as nominator. If it doesn't, than the discussion will go on. Editorofthewiki 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As someone else pointed out, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to your argument. An article on Renaud (I'm not even aware of who this person is/was) would need to be considered on its own merits and not just because this one was kept (or even not kept). Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 23:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Whilst he played at the top level of amateur American football, the top level of American football is professional, so not notable per WP:BIO Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Never played at a professional level, and while it's sad that he died young, Wikipedia is very specifically NOT a memorial. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since he never played professionally, he would need to have won some major awards at the collegiate level like a Hank Gathers to be notable.  Patken4 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this is not Len Bias. Quale (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - was notable; is notable. Was verifiable; is verifiable. Neier (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Did not play professionally, the fact that the top level of american football is professional trumps that he played amateur football. -Djsasso (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:BIO does it say that? Aboutmovies (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably the same place that is says the highest level of amateur competition is good enough when there are higher levels aka professional. :P It is no more of an iterpretation of WP:BIO than your assertion is. -Djsasso (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my opinion, guidelines for WikiProject College football override WP:BIO and WP:N (although it can be argued that the article meets the criteria for both). Either WP:N guideline should be rewritten to conform to the Project, or the project should be MfD, and that I would never support. It can't be both ways&mdash;besides, the article is properly sourced after all. MrPrada (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I would suggest joining the debate that I listed at the top. As I have very few objections to keeping this article I'm probebly going to have to close this as the nominator. Editorofthewiki 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, wikiproject guidelines never trumps policy. Secret account 01:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree to disagree. WP:N is a guideline as well, and Wikiprojects have their own guidelines for notability. Occasionally they are contrarian, in this case, they aren't, so I'm keeping my keep. MrPrada (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comment in the first AFD, little used backup that sadly died, was never notable to begin with, sad but WP:BLP1E comes to affect, as the only news coverage of him was because of his death. Secret account 01:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Except, WP:BLP1E exists for people who are in news articles that cover the person in the context of a particular event. In this case, reliable coverage about him can be found for more than the instance of his death.  Coverage of the games he played in and scored make WP:BLP1E irrelevant.  He is notable and received coverage for multiple reasons. Neier (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Playing in a college football game isn't notable, there are many thousands who did that, as for the coverage, it proves that he played but that's it, normally those type of game coverage are passing mentions, saying that he ran for xxx yards and that's it, not about the subject himself. There are not any non-passing mention sources out there that is not about his death and that's a perfect violation of WP:BLP1E Secret 21:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a perfect violation of WP:BLP1E. A perfect violation would be if a player with no game experience, no recruiting hype, etc had died.  That player would have had no other mentions in reliable sources, and the only articles would have been about his death.  That is not the case here.  Without going into wikilawyer mode myself, BLP1E even says that articles on the one-shot people MAY be unwarranted (emphasis mine) not that they should be deleted.  I'm not saying (or not not saying) that playing in a college game is notable.  That particular decision is irrelevant here.  The fact is that his death was notable, and, that BLP1E is inapplicable due to the pre-existing coverage (non-notable though it may have been). Neier (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * His death may have been newsworthy, but not notable. And this article isn't about his death, its about him. This very definately qualifies under the short burst of news coverage not making one notable. -Djsasso (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2008 (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.