Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montell Cozart


 * 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. WP:SK (nominator withdrew) and WP:SNOW. As an aside, how good or bad a player is or the team they're on has no bearing whatsoever on notability. That said, here's hoping the Jayhawks are better this year :) (non-admin closure) ansh 666 06:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Montell Cozart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCOLLATH as he has not received any major national attention outside of routine sports reporting, never received a major award, never was even nominated to an all-conference team, and has not and will not be inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame because of a mediocre career at a school that hasn't had a winning season in 9 years. Rockchalk 717 08:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Cozart was a starting quarterback for a Power Five program. He has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources and passes WP:GNG. A search of newslibrary.com turns up over 100 hits during the years 2012 to 2017 for "montell cozart" and in which "cozart" is part of the headline. See here. Examples of such significant coverage can be provided if desired. Cbl62 (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Cbl62. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment You might want to check that link again because that does not work. Run a google news search on him, the only articles you find are either stats, or various Kansas newspaper and news station websites reporting he has transferred, which falls under "routine sports reporting" which fails WP:NCOLLATH. Being a starting quarterback at power five conference does make you notable, especially at a school that has struggled to win games against FBS teams over the last few years. In addition you might want to go back and read WP:GNG because it says "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included". So you still have to follow notability guidelines for the article type and this is a BLP on a college athlete therefore WP:NCOLLATH needs to be used to determine notability.-- Rockchalk 717 02:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition, I refer to Articles for deletion/Ryan Willis an article with the same requirements, he is starting quarterback at Kansas (the current starting quarterback in fact) with no coverage other then what is considered routine coverage that was deleted using the same criteria for deletion as this article.-- Rockchalk 717 02:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Final comment, I did manually do a search on that website and none of the sources fall under "national media attention". He does have a couple articles that are outside of routine sports reporting, but not on the national level. All of those articles are from Kansas.com Wichita Eagle's website (my hometown newspaper), KansasCity.com Kansas City Star's website and CJOnline.com Topeka Capital-Journal's websites, all of which are local sports reporting not national. Truth be told, most skill position starters on power 5 teams could meet WP:GNG, that doesn't necessarily mean they need an article, which is why you turn to subject specific notability guidelines as well so since this is a BLP on a college athlete we use WP:NCOLLATH.-- Rockchalk 717 03:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Ryan Willis AfD was never properly linked to the list of American football-related deletion discussions and thus did not receive input from those knowledgeable about American football biographies (a total of one "delete" vote was cast). Please include such a link in any future American football AfDs you initiate. Moreover, it is well established that WP:NCOLLATH is an inclusionary standard intended to identify categories of folks where the vast, overwhelming majority indisputably pass WP:GNG. It is not an exclusionary standard, and GNG remains the governing principle where NCOLLATH is not satisfied. See, e.g., Jon Abbate, Marcus Williams, Trace McSorley, Chris Salvi. Cbl62 (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * For examples of articles about Cozart, see, e.g., (1)-(6) this, this, this, this, this, and this from ESPN.com, (7)-(8) this and this from NBC Sports, (9) this from Yahoo Sports, (10)-(16) this, this, this, this, this, this, and this from The Kansas City Star, (17)-(23) this, this, this, this, this, this, and this from The Wichita Eagle, and (24)-(30) this, this, this, this, this, this, and this from The Topeka Capital-Journal, (31)-(34) this, this, this, and this from the Lawrence Journal-World, and (35) this from the Emporia Gazette. Cbl62 (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep If an article passes GNG, that always overrides topic-specific notability guidelines; those are meant to be supplements to GNG, not excuses to delete articles on topics that are otherwise notable. Cbl62 has provided plenty of evidence that the subject passes GNG, so it doesn't really matter that the subject fails NCOLLATH. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 16:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep starting quarterbacks in Division I FBS schools seem to always muster more than enough coverage to thoroughly pass WP:GNG. I see no reason to make an exception here, even if he does play for the Jayhawks.  Go Wildcats.  --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Another comment then I will back off and accept defeat (and also recommend an ADMIN closes this AFD as keep) since I apparently have misunderstood notability guidelines. As I stated earlier, most skill position players that play in the power conferences would meet GNG guidelines. NCOLLATH needs to state that an article subject can fail those guidelines but can still have an article if it passes GNG. More specifically the part NCOLLATH that mentions "routine coverage" needs to be what gets fine tuned. It can be easy misunderstand those guidelines as being that if the college athlete doesn't meet those guidelines they shouldn't have an article.-- Rockchalk 717 02:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to back off. Those are the guidelines and the way we do things, but they (we) could be wrong. I know I'm wrong a lot.  But if you still want to withdrawal then an Admin can close anytime.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's research and sources. WP:GNG trumps all other Wikiproject-specific notability guidelines. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2017 (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.