Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Pough


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Keith Pough

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article makes no assertion of notability. Keith Pough was an undrafted free agent who was released before playing a single snap of professional football. That's not enough to satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON and there is no non-trivial coverage. There are dozens of such prospective NFL players every year and they aren't notable for being on the preseason team. Further, as an article about a player not in the news (because he's not playing) it's not being updated. At the time I encountered the article on October 23 it still claimed he played for Buffalo, even though he'd been released nearly two months ago. After fixing the references I proposed the article for deletion; the article's author removed the PROD tag on October 29 with a minor edit (no edit summary). That's his right but it's unhelpful. In sum, it's a non-notable stub with no prospect of expansion. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is information about this player on the internet. I am at the moment refraining from voting to delete this article, only to see whether someone comes up with compelling evidence to keep it. As I see it, this player has not done enough to merit an article of his own. If and when he does more notable things, then an article would be in order. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and any secondary coverage I can find seems to be WP:ROUTINE Sulfurboy (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think the above assessment says it all. There really is nothing notable at this time about this article. Bill Pollard (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral I'm will Bill for now. I'm finding a lot of stuff, but it appears to be local coverage or press releases from his school.  I did find a secodn team all-American FCS division, which is considered a "national award" and a good number of these smaller publications that are quoting him.  He doesn't pass WP:GRIDIRON but I could see a strong argument for WP:GNG.  Oh, and the article does make an assertion of notability--not a very good one, but it is there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep per research from Phightins! below. Nice work.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Lots of coverage from the Washington Post and also the Charlotte Post which, though that would be the local newspaper, still is one of the largest newspapers in America in terms of circulation. As such, I would think he meets GNG.  Go   Phightins  !  23:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My Highbeam subscription has lapsed. Are you able to read the article and indicate the nature of the coverage? Or, better, improve the article with that information? Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Further Comment - I researched into the four articles mentioned by Phightins!. I could not pin anything down on the Charlotte Post, since Highbeam only lets you go so far without signing up. I tried looking at the newspaper itself online, but could not locate the article, although it obviously exists. I did look at the Washington Post online and found a number of articles that at least mentioned Keith Pough. It seems the question that needs answered is whether Keith Pough's history is notable enough to warrant an article. I am willing to change my vote, but I want to hear a bit more about whether he is notable by Wikipedia standards. Bill Pollard (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The articles, I would say, offer non-trivial coverage, though Pough is undoubtedly not the main part of the article. I will do some more careful reading in hopes of extrapolating worthy information from the article in the next few days. Should I forget, please ping me on my talk page, as I will likely be busy tomorrow and Saturday, and am likely to forget.  Go  Phightins  !  02:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete He appears to be one of hundreds of former college players who fails to make it to the NFL every year. Nothing notable there, or in the fact that he fails both WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Mdtemp (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2013 (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.