Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Gerry


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Nathan Gerry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GRIDIRON without question and does not provide sources showing it passes WP:GNG in any way either. JTtheOG (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The funniest part is that it's being "considered" for deletion. I think there needs to be a faster button for those people laughing too hard to offer their opinion. Is there a suggestion box some place? Oh, I forgot, Delete. Speedy delete--J. M. Pearson (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just went back and read notability guidelines for sports, this article doesn't even pass Basic Criteria.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Gerry is a three-year starter for Nebraska, has had an outstanding 2016 senior season, and is a semifinalist for the 2016 Chuck Bednarik Award. See here. He was also named to the 2016 mid-season All-America team. See here. Also rated as one of the top five cornerback prospects in the upcoming NFL Draft. See here. Also Big Ten Defensive Player of the Week back in mid-September. See here. See also (1) this AP feature story (picked up by multiple papers across the country, e.g., here and here) as a further example of the significant coverage he has received. See also significant coverage (2) here, (3) here, (4) here, and (5) here. Based on the foregoing significant coverage, he passes under WP:GNG. The national coverage represented by the AP story may also pass under the third prong of WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, man, your stats are a drop in the ocean of sports statistics. My friend, you are missing the whole tone and tenor of WP. This ain't going to work with articles like this one-- promotional, personal, with its look-at-me-and-what-I-did, kind of nonsense.  I'm like one week old in WP, but I don't even have to  run to the guidelines for this one, it stinks.  This is Facebook material and not at all suited for a top 10 website dealing with education and knowledge. I won't even give you a seat for discussion on this one. It's so gauche with its vanity for attention that it slaps one in the face with its under achiever striving. Forget it. If this gets in then just turn out the lights and let the animals roam. Because there ain't no rules any more.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 07:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, J. M.! As someone with one week's experience on Wikipedia, you might want to review WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. They should provide you with a stronger foundation for understanding the applicable standards. Perhaps after reviewing these items, you will reconsider your decision to deny me "a seat for the discussion".  In the meantime, let's let others weigh in on the merits of this one before we turn out the lights or free the animals. Cbl62 (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a million of these out there in the world. Every profession, every drain pipe, every place to be, has above average "mediocres" that sparkle but don't shine, that are tall but not tall enough. Why do you have to push this kind of material, are you the guy? His brother?  Does he have cancer and this is his last wish, to be on Wikipedia?  I can't tell you how strongly I feel about this. I'm not even going to try and sound smart and quote the guidelines. There needs to be a paradigm shift in thinking in here or WP is going to die.  What you have, that shouldn't garner more than 3 minutes of consideration before incineration. It's an encyclopedia, not a repository for every wanna-be on planet Earth looking for attention. Thanks for understanding, have a nice life.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes GNG with sources provided by Cbl62. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I bet you did that with glee. Oh I forgot, it's football season. Of course it passes muster. Now there needs to be a WikiTHIS and a WikiTHAT for everything. Glad I'm helping. You're going to need it for this new social networking club that used to be Wikipedia.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think football players shouldn't have articles? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against football players, this isn't personal. I think I made my point earlier well enough and in the most blunt way possible. WP needs to hire a Simon Cowell that knows how to deal with these WP wannabes that don't deserve it. If this gets in then next week the bar gets lowered even more, and more, and more, until finally this site is in the dumpster.  I have a problem with those who experience a slight good spell in life thinking they are worthy of worldwide recognition. I don't even need the guidelines for this one, and if I did this site wouldn't be worth it.  This is commonsense.  Well good luck with all this and enjoy the game next Sunday. There won't be any cheers for Wikipedia, that's for sure.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep significant coverage found during AFD and other sources show a clear pass of Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Other comments are irrelevant to the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Sir, I got your message. I see now why you felt the need to chide me for my candid approach, you have a vested interest in the matter. I guess I'm too new in here to have a valued opinion. I don't know the right people in WP's clique, apparently.  I'll make sure and stay away from footballers and soccer fans in the future. And as much as it would pain me to be banned, it wouldn't brake my heart either. If frank truth is too much to handle in here then I wouldn't fit in anyway. Regards. And good luck from now on dealing with every grandma that ever baked a tasty cookie and high-schooler that ever threw a completed pass. Cuz that's what you're doing with this tainted thumbs up. Hope you're getting paid well. --J. M. Pearson (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Who do you think should have an article? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Who? Someone who ain't a "who?" bad diction on purpose.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And one more thing, I'm fully aware that I'm out of line here. I wouldn't think of trying to maintain this tone forever.  It's not my intention to insult anyone.  I just truly felt this needed to be done.  Please don't take offense, anyone. I'll chill, but I'm still going to be frank if the situation calls for it.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:AVOIDYOU -- avoiding personal attacks and please keep your comments to the issue at hand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't like your threatening tone. You guys would never appreciate someone like me. Let's see, how does that line go? Oh yeah, "You can't handle the truth." Five years from now you'll wish you had more people like me. But by then it will be too late. I'm going to take a break from this and decide if it's worth it.  I feel jaded already--J. M. Pearson (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Who do you consider to not be a "who"? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Goodness. Sounds like a loaded question, like "When are you going to stop beating your wife." You are asking a vague question about an infinite set of possibilities. I'll sum, no proposed article should be judged based on its own self-imposed standards. And I know that makes sense to you. And that's what you guys are getting in WP  50 times a day, and endless parade of "show-and-tell" stories from anyone over the age of six. Then there's a million years wasted trying to be exceedingly fair and impartial for articles that only take up space. Done for now, have to work. They're talking about me in admin, probably going to ban my dangerous presence. But I have a feeling I've touched a valued nerve someplace.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How does it get past,"reliable sources that are independent of the subject" from GNG, and "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent," from Basic? You may be right, but I'm curious to know. Please help me understand.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All the news sources. Gerry isn't working for those news networks who wrote about him, so they are independent of the subject. Published can mean published by airing it in a TV broadcast or putting it on the Internet, not necessarily published in a book or magazine. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the reliable sources listed above. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:50, 3 November 2016 (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.