Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O. J. Murdock


 * 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. There is a consensus to delete with policy-based arguments though it's narrow. With apologies to Rlendog for their good work, the coverage outside of the tragic events is deemed to not add up to notabilty per GNG. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

O. J. Murdock

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Never played a pro game and his college career was not distinguished. Only news coverage WP:ROUTINE. As for his tragic death, WP:NOTNEWS applies....William 22:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep While no doubt his death has likely sparked interest in the news, I'm finding coverage back to his high school days as a sprinter. It seems he has some significant coverage after all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting - and they're not just stats and the like? Do you have links to those?  Zujua (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I looked at the existing news stories in which he's mentioned and IMHO he simply doesn't meet the notability guidelines per WP:NGRIDIRON (pro football/NFL players), WP:NCOLLATH (college athletes) or high school athletes. Clearly, he's not notable based on his NFL career alone, particularly because he never played in a game. His college career was not distinguished. And although he was a great high school athlete, even being named Male High School Athlete of the Year by the Tampa Tribune in 2005, all the coverage about him was local, which, by rule, must be excluded from consideration when determining notability. If all high school star athletes were by default considered notable, then Wikipedia would continually be adding tens of thousands of articles for all of them. I think perhaps the mere fact that we would stretch to consider Murdock's high school career as a basis for determining notability is the strongest evidence that he is in fact not notable. And it goes without saying, per rule, that the reporting of his unfortunate death, in and of itself, also does not make him notable. I wish he had played in at least one NFL game so that this discussion wouldn't be necessary. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. As that section of the guideline notes, GNG establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. But unlike  76.189.114.163, I don't think its a problem that he never played an NFL game.  I think that it is the combination of his somewhat troubled personal life, his professional-quality athletic career (including the track accomplishments mentioned by Paul McDonald), and his high profile suicide (it made news front-page on cnn.com as opposed to just sportsillustrated.cnn.com) make the subject notable.  One admittedly sad way of looking at it is that the suicide clinches notability in the same way that playing in one NFL game would have.  72.244.204.202 (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The guidelines I, and the nominator, referred to are the applicable and vital subsets of WP:GNG that must be looked at when trying to determine notability. Although User 72 believes it is not a problem that Murdock never played in an NFL game, the reality is that it is a big problem. Per guideline 1 of WP:NGGRIDIRON, notability would be established for an NFL player IF the person has "appeared in at least one regular season or post season game." That's a low standard for NFL players, but Murdock still didn't meet it. Most importantly, User 72 has a major flaw in his rationale: He mistakenly believes that notability can be established by combining multiple non-significant (non-notable) events. But the fact is that if none of those events, individually, establishes notability, then they do not establish it when they are combined. Encyclopedically, his troubled life is of no significance in this regard. As the notability guidelines make clear, terms like "professional-quality athletic career" would not be necessary if one were truly notable. In any case, Murdock's track career was amateur. And again, his suicide has absolutely no impact when determining his notability, which needed to be established prior to his death. Therefore, his suicide in no way "clinches," nor even helps to establish, his notability. Each applicable guideline for which his notability is being considered (pro, college and high school athletes) are the only criteria that can be considered. WP:GNG is merely a basic starting point. Murdock was a very good high school and college athlete, but his career in them was simply not distinguished (in an encyclopedic notability sense). --76.189.114.163 (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not playing in the NFL just means that he didn't achieve notability by playing in the NFL. Subjects can earn notability through many other paths, such as WP:ABELINCOLN.  I think this subject has done that through WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course it can be earned through different paths. But none of Murdock's paths give him notability. He doesn't qualify under the general WP:GNG guidelines or under the more specific guidelines most applicable to him, WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH or high school athletes. I wish I could vote to keep the article, but I've read everything available on him and he just isn't notable. Based on my research, this is an easy call. But if someone can provide links that establish his notability, I'll be happy to change my vote. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Reads more like someone needed to write it for their own personal therapy David Unit (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG, and doesn't appear notable via WP:NGRIDIRON either. Tragic, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL. GiantSnowman 10:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep per WP:GNG. I can't see how it fails the GNG criteria. 1) sources address the subject directly in detail: The two cited sources at CNN and USA Today do this. These are not trivial mentions; they're directly about the subject of the article. 2) Reliability: these sources are no doubt reliable; they're national news outlets. 3) Sources: The sources are obviously secondary. 4) Independent of the subject: These sources clearly aren't the subject's family, friends or anyone else close to him; they're national news outlets. 5) Presumed: This is where the debate should be...this isn't about GNG, really, but about perhaps what Wikipedia is not. To recap, this fails WP:NGRIDIRON no question and passes WP:GNG up to the fifth criterion. But does it pass WP:NOTMEMORIAL? I'm inclined to say it does, because this is not a memorial in the usual sense. I think because the player was a member of an NFL team at the time of his death, his demise adds to his notability. It may also be premature to delete the article because his notability could be enhanced if it turns out his suicide was in some way related to hits/concussions sustained in football: several recent cases of suicides have highlighted the head trauma that can result from playing the sport, although this player is younger than the others.--Batard0 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that although he may appear to pass WP:GNG because of the coverage about his suicide, he fails WP:NOTTEMPORARY, which says "if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Sadly, the coverage of his suicide is the only high-profile coverage he's ever had. Before that, he was in fact low-profile and not notable. And to your other point about concussions, Wikipedia doesn't allow keeping an article solely based on pure speculation about a possible future occurrence that might make the topic notable. The topic must CURRENTLY be notable. If this article is deleted, it can always be re-added if notability is later established. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's a borderline case. I agree with the point that he is not notable other than for his suicide (I think we can all agree on this), but would also note the language that you quote: if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. So the question is: is this person likely to remain a low-profile individual? If he is likely to remain low profile, I agree with deletion. If not (perhaps because of pure speculation about a future occurrence that might make the topic notable), it should be kept. The language likely to remain contradicts your contention that "Wikipedia doesn't allow keeping an article solely based on pure speculation about a possible future occurrence that might make the topic notable". If it were the case that Wikipedia required a topic to be currently notable, the likelihood of a person becoming notable wouldn't be part of any policy. Are there any citations to policies that state explicitly that Wikipedia doesn't allow this?--Batard0 (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The suicide is already being discussed in the context not of one single event, but in the context a series of suicides among NFL players. See, for example, here. Adding to this the coverage he received from reliable sources as a track star and as a future NFL prospect, I think there is a case that he's notable. I personally don't have a problem with the article's deletion and the incorporation of information about him in, say, an article or list on player safety issues/suicides among NFL players, but I'm still struggling to find the policy that definitively says he's not notable. Many people seem to be objecting on WP:NGRIDIRON grounds without considering the obvious alternatives establishing notability. That objection alone isn't enough to make him not notable.--Batard0 (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - He has yet to play in a regular season game, so it fails WP:NGRIDIRON.  Zappa  O  Mati   17:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Murdock's death will likely be used as a reference point for future discussions of mental health by the NFL and various pundits/researchers. The reason that he committed suicide is not known at this time but future notability may be established if his death is determined to be the result of depression caused by concussive impacts and is thus used as a building block to new player health programs. At this time his article is not notable as Wikipedia does not serve the purpose of indexing everyone on a professional sports roster but notability could be established in the coming months based on next steps taken by the NFL. Boston2austin (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball....William 21:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This vote is to decide one issue: Is the subject currently notable? Period. All this talk of his suicide somehow possibly being connected to issues relating to mental health and concussions is pure speculation. As you correctly stated, the "reason that he committed suicide is not known at this time" and, most importantly, "at this time his [sic] article is not notable." You acknowledged that the subject is not currently notable, so you therefore should be voting to delete it. We're not voting based on what the subject's status MIGHT be in the future. We can't say, "Hey, let's wait three months to see if he becomes notable." --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - the coverage on this seems to be borderline non-routine coverage, but I can't imagine it really being of encyclopedic interest unless, as Boston2austin and others suggest, it may be used as a subject of some study of mental health, etc., but even in that case, it probably would be included in that mental health-related article and not as a standalone. Zujua (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to Redirect to History of the Tennessee Titans, per discussion by Jax 0677 et al below. Zujua (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable and we do not indiscriminately collect memorials. Hekerui (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tennessee Titans, since this is the latest (and only) NFL team for whom Murdock had played.--Jax 0677 (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Murdock never played in a game for them. Not even a preseason game....William 13:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this vote is to determine if the subject is notable. And of course a non-notable subject cannot be redirected. Also, he never played in a game anyway. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * AFD are not votes. Secondly, arguing for a redirect instead of a deletion is perfectly acceptable. I don't agree with a redirect in this case, but any editor can propose a redirect as an option other than Keep or Delete....William 15:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I meant discussion, not vote. And my point is that non-notability overrides a redirect. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Redirects are cheap. The statement that "a non-notable subject cannot be redirected" is not true (or at least not widely accepted).  Many musicians such as Chris Kael, Jeff Worley and Maria Brink have links to their musical ensembles.  Also,


 * What part of WP:R is met?
 * What part of WP:R besides Section 6 is not supported here? There is a "useful page history", "[makes] the creation of duplicate articles less likely", "[aids] searches on certain terms" (i.e. Tennessee Titans) and "someone [may find] them useful".  The suicide could potentially be talked about at Tennessee Titans, as WP:N does "not limit the content of an article or list".  I feel that "Tennessee Titans" is the best place to which the article can be redirected.
 * Additionally, I believe that the title is neutral.
 * Thanks!--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll correct my statement about non-notable subjects not being redirected. A non-notable band member being redirected to the band's article (assuming the band is notable) is fine because he/she obviously played at least one gig with that band, and the names of all the band's current and former members are worthy of inclusion. But Murdock never played a "gig" (game) with the Titans. I wish that simply being on the roster of a pro sports team was enough to establish notability, but unfortunately it isn't. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Unless the three bullet points above can be addressed, the article should be redirected (or kept). On a side note, the only reason this has received national coverage is because Murdock was "signed by the Tennessee Titans of the National Football League (NFL) as an undrafted free agent".--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this kind of information would be appropriate in the main Tennessee Titans page, but would perhaps be better suited in a subpage like History of the Tennessee Titans (And/or to sub-sub page 2012 Tennessee Titans season). Changing my !vote as such per your argument.  Zujua (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're putting the cart before the horse. WP:R and WP:R only apply to EXISTING redirects. So they're not applicable to the Murdock article. To determine if a redirect is even warranted, the purposes of redirects must first be considered. Which criteria on the listed purposes warrants a redirect? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - Murdock is a "[Sub-topic] or other [topic] which [is] described or listed within a wider article". Had I known about this article before it was nominated for AfD, I could have redirected it to History of the Tennessee Titans, but doing so NOW would not be in line with consensus.  Additionally, R states, and I quote, "Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include ...".  This implies "but not limited to the following".  Last and definitely not least, while he was alive Murdock could have been listed at Tennessee_Titans or 2012_Tennessee_Titans_season under "Reserve Lists".--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Murdock was listed at Template:Tennessee Titans roster under his correct status when he was alive.
 * From a historical perspective (WP:RECENTISM), Murdock's suicide should not be included at History of the Tennessee Titans, as he did not play for them and he probably would not have been a contributor to their team in the future. The article should either be kept as a standalone article or deleted, not redirected or merged, since his notability (or lack thereof) can only be limited to his own article. I tried removing the borderline off-topic content from History of the Tennessee Titans, but I was reverted and told to refer to this discussion, which, if I might add, does not have consensus yet. Should this article be deleted and redirected, I plan to bring the redirect to WP:RFD.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  23:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then let's address the redirect here.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - If an article already exists, then a redirect from that article is cheap. Case in point, Pete Hoekstra 2012 Superbowl advertisement in Michigan was changed from an article to redirect to Pete_Hoekstra.--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Where would this article be redirected to? No single aspect of his life (college career, professional career, or death) is notable enough to even warrant more than a passing mention in any article (other than this one if it's kept). In the case you reference, an event not notable enough on its own was redirected to the main topic. Murdock's biography is not a subtopic to a main topic here.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  02:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - Because "redirects are CHEAP", "in a subpage like History of the Tennessee Titans (And/or to sub-sub page 2012 Tennessee Titans season)". BTW Eagles247, it says "Please add new comments below this notice", but you added a comment above the notice after the fact.--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am replying to your comment, so it goes in the place I put it. Please continue to use that essay as an end-all be-all to this discussion, it is really addressing the arguments I brought up.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  03:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Paul McDonald mostly, as this person has received coverage going back to high school, including for track and field accomplishments, legal woes and changing teams in addition to football coverage. The suicide coverage of course adds that much more coverage.  While the suicide coverage alone might be dismissed as WP:BLP1E, the pre-suicide coverage negates that argument.  If the article is not kept, it should of course be redirected, as non-notable subjects absolutely can be redirected (unless of course the reliably sourced information in the Titans' article is removed by consensus). Rlendog (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, WP doesn't allow what you want to do - combining the different parts of someone's life to establish notability, which is about quality, not quantity. If none of the individual parts of his life can establish notability, then he's not notable. Also, local-only coverage cannot be used to establish an athlete's notability anyway. Otherwise, every local star athlete would be notable. Both the sources you cited are from his local area. The high school and college careers are clearly not notable. And the pro career, by rule, is not notable because he never played in a game. This is the reason why thousands of athletes who were invited to the training camps of pro teams do not have articles. I wish Murdock had played in a game so his notability would be established. And, as you acknowledged, the suicide (sadly) is not notable. Hey, my brother was a star baseball and basketball player in high school and college, and was in the local papers a lot. And so were some of his teammates. But it was all local stardom; like a big fish in a small pond. So unfortunately, he doesn't get his own Wiki article either. ;) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't allow -- No policy is being violated. You're over-stretching the argument here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Unfortunately, WP doesn't allow what you want to do - combining the different parts of someone's life to establish notability..." Which guideline or policy says that?  WP:N says that notability is based on significant coverage by multiple reliable sources.  Murdock meets that easily now.  WP:BLP1E makes an exception for coverage received for a single event.  But some of Murdock's reliably sourced coverage is for events other than his suicide, and hence that exception doesn't come into play. Rlendog (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Let's break this down, shall we? Wikipedia is not a memorial, so let's strip sentiment away... Never played in a pro game, so no low bar admission as a fully professional athlete. A very typical collegiate career, no special consideration there. Nor does committing suicide solve the notability issue. Routine coverage. Carrite (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Carrite and others above have the right idea . . . subject is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON.  His unfortunate death does not qualify for special consideration per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, even if the coverage might otherwise be enough to satisfy WP:GNG because his notoriety/notability is based on the single event of his death, which is disqualified per WP:ONEEVENT.  Several "keep" editors above mentioned coverage of the subject's high school and college sports career sufficiently in-depth to satisfy WP:GNG.  Sorry, but I don't see it; everything I found in a Google News Archive search varies from trivial mentions to routine post-game coverage.  If anyone has found non-trivial, non-routine, in-depth coverage of the subject for his high school and college sports careers, I suggest you post links to the articles.  Otherwise, this article is on greased skids to deletion.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Some people stated previously that redirects are only cheap if they exist already. Therefore, I created a redirect to History of the Tennessee Titans and changed it back to what it was before.  Now the redirect "exists", and is "cheap" to keep.  Therefore, this article should be redirected in a similar manner to Pete Hoekstra 2012 Superbowl advertisement in Michigan.  If not, my three bullet points above need to be addressed.--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree to keep it. Chris4315 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - IMHO, this is best considered either from WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. The only thing WP:NGRIDIRON contributes is a bright line about playing in an NFL game, which Murdock didn't.  So we are looking at whether he is the  subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.


 * It's easy to find legitimate secondary sources:


 * Earlier comments note these sources:


 * 1) http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/us/florida-murdock-suicide
 * 2) http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--football-player-suicide-oj-murdock.html (NFL implications)
 * 3) http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5833981
 * 4) http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBOMOVLT8E.html
 * 5) http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/04/Sports/Lean_in_the_right_dir.shtml (track/field)


 * Simple searches identify others, covering various aspects of his life and career from a variety of perspectives:


 * 1) http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-oj-murdock-20120731,0,6229440.story
 * 2) http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-10-18-notebook_x.htm
 * 3) http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1279062-oj-murdocks-death-bigger-than-football-for-the-titans
 * 4) http://tulane.scout.com/a.z?s=202&p=2&c=728614
 * 5) http://frugivoremag.com/2012/07/another-football-player-apparently-commits-suicide-tennessee-titan-o-j-murdock-dead-at-25/
 * 6) http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82af311a/article/oj-murdock-called-former-coach-before-death
 * 7) http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/368324/20120730/oj-murdock-dead-dies-suicide-titans-tennessee.htm
 * 8) http://newsone.com/2027778/o-j-murdock-suicide-tennessee-titans/
 * 9) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/sports/football/nfl-football-roundup.html
 * 10) http://www.titansonline.com/team/roster/oj-murdock/84904cf6-58ec-4ac0-a85a-e6d76dad77fa/
 * 11) http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/nfl/07/30/oj-murdock-dead-suicide.ap/index.html
 * 12) http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120731/SPORTS01/307310032/Tennessee-Titans-shocked-by-receiver-O-J-Murdock-s-suicide
 * http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/a-final-highlight-reel-for-ex-middleton-high-football-star-oj-murdock/1244622


 * These sources seem to make him notable for his on-the-field talents (in sports beyond football, though its clear that football became his focus). They seem to make him notable for his off-the-field actions (the crimes he committed, the third suicide of an NFL player, after Junior Seau and whoever the other guy was).  He was an undrafted free agent, not the most common way to get into the NFL--the Titan bio succinctly summarizes why they signed him.


 * He's no WP:SLAMDUNK but after reading about him online I think Keep is the right conclusion. 67.101.5.14 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. In response to to IP user 67.101.5.14's comment above and Batard's comments below, we apparently have some misunderstanding about what multiple "non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" actually means per WP:GNG.  Here are my responses regarding the sources cited by others and mentioned by IP user 67.101.5.14 above:
 * 1. CNN article about suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.  He's not going to become notable because of his death if he wasn't already notable.
 * 2. Yahoo article about his suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
 * 3. WISTV article about subject's move to South Carolina track team--please see WP:ROUTINE.  Such "transactional" articles/announcements do not constitute meaningful coverage of the subject.  Otherwise, virtually every college football player and many more high school athletes would be notable.
 * 4. Tampa Tribune article about high school sports banquet--routine coverage about high school sports banquet--please see WP:ROUTINE.
 * 5. St. Petersburg Times article about high school track--solid secondary source per WP:RS and WP:V.
 * . . . and the "new" sources found and cited by 67.101.5.14 immediately above:
 * 1. Los Angeles Times article about his suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
 * 2. Brief USA Today article about subject's arrest for shoplifting in larger CFB "transactions" column.  Closer to routine than substantive.  So, we're going to use "Police Beat" blurbs to establish athlete's notability, eh?
 * 3. BleacherReport.com fan blog about his suicide--fan blogs are not reliable sources per WP:RS.
 * 4. Scout.com recruiting blog--trivial mention in a source that probably does not qualify as a reliable source per WP:RS.
 * 5. Blog account of his suicide on Frugivore, an apparently self-published online magazine.  Again, his death is not going to make him notable per WP:BIO1E and/or WP:BLP1E; doubtful whether blog source qualifies as a reliable source per WP:RS in any event.
 * 6. NFL.com account of suicide; again coverage of suicide does not make him notable per WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E.  Furthermore, NFL.com is not an independent source per WP:GNG and WP:RS for purposes of establishing the notability of an NFL football player.
 * 7. International Business Timnes article about his suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
 * 8. NewsOne.com article about his suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
 * 9. New York Times article about his suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
 * 10. Titansonline.com player bio--not an independent source per WP:GNG and WP:RS for purposes of establishing the notability of an Titans football player.
 * 11. Associated Press article on SportsIllustrated.com about his suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
 * 12. Tennesseean article about his suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
 * 13. Obituary article published in Tampa Bay Times--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.


 * By my count, of the 18 sources listed above, exactly one of them is not a story about his suicide AND provides "non-trivial" coverage of the subject in a "secondary source" that is "reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Sorry, guys, but we are bootstrapping his suicide to artificially create notability that does not exist.  This guy's career did not rise to the level of a notable high school or college athlete.  If you have questions, ask.  I am happy to review the applicable notability provisions with you.  My critical review of the sources strongly suggests that the subject athlete and posited sources do not satisfy the applicable WP notability and sourcing guidelines.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Great explanation, Dirtlawyer. I tried several times previously explaining everything you said, but you did a much better job of it. Haha. Eighteen sources, 17 of them trivial. Exactly. Very sad story, but he's simply not notable. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IP user 76.189.114.163, let me clarify my statement above: of those sources that are not about his death, only one is a non-trivial, non-routine, reliable source about his sports career. Several of the sources about his death are substantive reliable sources, but because they deal primarily (if not exclusively) with his death, they do not support his notability per the one-event rule of WP:BLP1E and/or WP:BIO1E.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what you meant. Haha. Did you read my prior posts? My wording was off. I must've been tired. Nice job. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Except given that you acknowledge that there is a non-trivial, non-routine, reliable source about his sports career, the coverage of his suicide is no longer a single event for which he has received coverage per WP:BLP1E, it is a 2nd event for which he has received significant coverage. So BLP1E is no longer applicable.  Not to mention that his legal issues have received more coverage than just a police blotter.  There was a full St. Petersburg Times story about that as well. Rlendog (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what you meant. Haha. Did you read my prior posts? My wording was off. I must've been tired. Nice job. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Except given that you acknowledge that there is a non-trivial, non-routine, reliable source about his sports career, the coverage of his suicide is no longer a single event for which he has received coverage per WP:BLP1E, it is a 2nd event for which he has received significant coverage. So BLP1E is no longer applicable.  Not to mention that his legal issues have received more coverage than just a police blotter.  There was a full St. Petersburg Times story about that as well. Rlendog (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per my comments above. I could change my mind, but I won't until I've seen what I consider a clear-cut case for deletion citing relevant policy. WP:NGRIDIRON isn't a be-all and end-all for notability. It appears to meet WP:GNG.--Batard0 (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Batard, WP:GRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH are only relevant as short-cuts for establishing a presumption of notability for professional football players and college athletes. The subject does not satisfy either WP:GRIDIRON or WP:COLLATH; therefore, if we are going to establish the subject's notability, it must be done under the harder-to-satisfy standards of WP:GNG, as well as the sourcing guidelines thereunder, to wit:


 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.  [Footnoted examples include: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial.  The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton is plainly trivial.]
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language.  Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources", [Footnote text: including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources.  Multiple sources are generally expected.  [Footnote text: Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.  It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.  Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.]  Sources are not required to be available online]], and they are not required to be in English.  Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.  [My note: multiple versions of the same Associated Press article only count once.]
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. [My note: Sources published by the athlete's league, team, university, etc., are usually disregarded for purposes of establishing notability.]
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. [My note: At the end of the day, even if the subject technically meets the standard of WP:GNG, we can still say there is not enough "there there" to support a stand-alone Wikipedia article.]


 * Let's be perfectly clear: this is an athlete whose primary claim to fame is that he committed suicide. He was not an All-American football player, he did not receive college all-conference recognition, he did not receive any sort of CFB national award, and he did not receive any meaningful media coverage of his college sports career.  He was not selected in the NFL Draft, and never played a down in a regular season NFL game.  Frankly, I'm shocked we're even talking about this.  If the subject had not received national media coverage of his suicide, this would not even be a close call.  Apart from those July 2012 articles covering his death which should be disqualified from supporting his notability per the single-event policy of WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, I count exactly one article that qualifies as a meaningful, reliable source, independent of the subject--and that is a discussion of his high school track career.  If you actually review and comprehend the WP:GNG standards, this should be a clear delete.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If a redirect were created to Tennessee_Titans or 2012_Tennessee_Titans_season when Murdock was on injured reserve, I am sure the WP:CHEAP policy would apply, since this is a legitimate destination for the redirect.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Except that "coverage" does not get disqualified by BLP1E. BLP1E covers people whose coverage is entirely due to a single event, and says that they are not notable just because of that event (with a some exception for extremely major events, which is not applicable here).   If all the coverage was for the suicide, I would probably agree with the BLP1E argument.  But the suicide coverage is an addition to significant coverage for other things, which renders BLP1E inapplicable. Otherwise, someone with coverage for 100 events would be deemed non-notable because each was a single event. Rlendog (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Rlendog, for the sake of argument, even if we accepting your argument at face value, there is absolutely no reason why this AfD must accept this article for inclusion. Please read WP:GNG, specifically the section regarding "presumed" (I have included the full text of GNG above).  It states "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion.  Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article."   To my way of thinking,


 * 1 reliably sourced article about a high school track career




 * a handful of trivial or routine mentions about a college football career




 * a handful of routine articles about an arrest for shoplifting




 * reliably sourced articles about a suicide




 * encyclopedic content


 * At the end of the day, even if the subject technically satisfies the standards of WP:GNG, we can still say there is not enough "there there" to support a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Where is the encyclopedic content?  What is the encyclopedic purpose in including a stand-alone article about this subject?  To put it indelicately, are we really twisting ourselves into logical knots trying to justify keeping an article about a mediocre college football player, with a one-time arrest record for shoplifting, who committed suicide?  How is Wikipedia improved by the inclusion of this article?  How is Wikipedia harmed by its deletion?


 * To repeat my earlier summary of the subject's sports career, he earned no conference or national recognition as a college football player, was not selected in the NFL Draft, and never played a down as a professional. Heck, he isn't even particularly noteworthy to the two college programs for which he played.  Sad though his death may be, there is no "there there."  Time to apply common sense and recognize what WP:GNG says: "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion.  Delete.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The events are tragic, and there is significant coverage is of the suicide. However, if he hadn't committed suicide, we would not be having this discussion. Glrx (talk) 17:44, 8 August 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.