Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Wright Jr


 * 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. No evidence of notability presented under the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) or any relevant SNG. j⚛e deckertalk 14:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Nathan Wright Jr

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Upon reading his article I can't really see how he is notable, and I suspect that Wright himself (or someone close to him) wrote his article. The external links used as references are smoke and mirrors because they don't establish his notability. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 22:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This looks like a vanity piece.  The article creator made several edits in creating this article in 2009 and has not made any edits before or since.  There is a lack of reliable, verifiable sources indicating that the article passes WP:GNG.  Cbl62 (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Further thoughts: From the article, it appears he was a starter in a grand total of two college football games.  While college football players at FBS schools can be notable without playing pro ball, there needs to be substantial, non-trivial coverage in mainstream media sources for a college athletic career to support a notability finding.  Here, there is no such coverage that has been presented or found.  As Dirtlawyer noted, he also does not fall within WP:ACADEMIC.  And the sourcing to his employer's web site is not independent and therefore cannot be used to support a finding of notability. Cbl62 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost the entire article is unsourced BLP as well. I've removed some of the most egregious.  Hard to believe something this poor survived on Wikipedia for three years.  Cbl62 (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails the specific notability guidelines for high school and college athletes per WP:NSPORTS and university instructors and administrators per WP:ACADEMIC, and I believe also fails to satisfy the general notability criteria per WP:GNG.  Particularly, the article lacks reliable, independent sources that provide substantial in-depth coverage of the subject . . .  and, yes, as Cbl said above, it does appear to be a vanity piece with probable conflict of interest issues.  The article is also odd in that it begins with a recitation of the notability of the subject's father, who was an NFL player.  Other editors should note that the similarity of the name of the subject's father (born 1947) and that of an apparently unrelated black minister and civil rights leader (1923–2005), which may have contributed to a conflation of the three in previous quick Google search evaluations of the subject's notability.  The other two are probably notable; the subject is not.  There is also a 19th Century American mayor (1785–1858), and an 18th Century English judge (1654–1721) of nearly identical name.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to agree--This looks like "Hey I have a Wikipedia article about myself!" and while there may (or may not) indeed be some notability here, it is lost in what seems to be self-promotion.  Barring a major re-write, I think this particular article is better off removed.  If anyone wants to userfy, that would be okay with me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2012 (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.