Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Felton


 * 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. I felt that the keep side had the point here. While this may be a borderline case, he has been covered; and, even if this isn't the first time a local athlete has been covered by local papers, he's still been the subject of coverage in his area. Local notability isn't the same as being a household name, but it's still notability. Props to User:Cunard for fixing up the article. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D  05:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert Felton

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:ATH and also fails WP:GNG due to lack of "signifcant coverage". Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC) *Keep per above links. A starter at a BCS school will almost always have an abundance of "significant coverage" by reliable sources Corpx (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Just going to strike my comments in light of comments made by the guy who created the article Corpx (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  -- Giants27  ( c  |  s ) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- Giants27  ( c  |  s ) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep correct me if I am wrong, but there are a lot of sources in news. Maybe a different person. Thank you nominator for taking the time to try to save this article first, as per WP:BEFORE I  strongly respect that. Ikip (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of those hits are about a chief police officer.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 23:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Using this Google News Archive search and this one, I was able to find a number of reliable sources about the subject. This article from the Toronto Star provides information about him being signed by the Buffalo Bills. Furthermore, this article from The Buffalo News and this article from The Buffalo News provide more coverage about him. There are also more reliable sources that cover his college years. This article from Log Cabin Democrat discusses Felton's sense of humor and his impact on the University of Arkansas football team. There is also this article from The Morning News/Razorback Central which discusses his freshman year at the University of Arkansas. The ample coverage in reliable sources means that Robert Felton passes WP:BIO and this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. User:Cunard's sources, particularly on his college career seem like they could make a V, NPOV, NOR article. I would like to see how it works in the article. Double Blue  (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Thanks to User:Cunard for working on this article. It's clear that to me there are sufficient reliable sources for a stub article. I wish the sources had more information about his life and career but they are sufficient to source what is there and meet WP:N; one of the articles is completely about him. Double Blue  (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * *Withdraw The links Cunard provided show notability.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC) I think I'll let this run.-- Giants27  ( c  |  s ) 12:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - It appears to be no use, but none of that coverage is substantial. He's really not notable enough, no matter how this vote turns how. Hell, I created the article and I know he's not notable enough. Especially since he hasn't been with a pro team this year and his professional career seems to be over before it started.► Chris Nelson Holla! 01:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How are the sources not substantial? Cunard (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable enough, he most likely wont ever play professionally.--Yankees10 01:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - And sorry, but some of these articles just should not be enough to make someone notable. If Robert Felton signing with the Bills doesn't make him notable enough, then an article that listed Felton as a handful of Bills signings shouldn't either. Most of that coverage isn't focused on him, but rather the result of playing at an SEC school. Wikipedia has some serious notability issues if that's enough for inclusion.


 * I also think it's relevant that if I hadn't created the article in my haste to create them for every undrafted NFL rookie, no one ever would have because his professional career never even took off.► Chris Nelson Holla! 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The first three articles I cited provide enough coverage about Felton to pass WP:BIO. Yes, the articles were about his failure to get drafted, but that should not disqualify those sources. The last two articles I cited are significant coverage about Felton's college football career. One of those sources devotes an entire article about Felton's impact on his football team. I concur that Felton fails WP:ATHLETE, but that doesn't mean that this article should be deleted. WP:ATHLETE is a subset of WP:N, so if Felton passes WP:N, whether or not he passes WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant. I expanded and sourced this article before Chris Nelson's delete vote, so G7 does not apply. Cunard (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually created the article before but it got speedied per A7. And you actually created in when the Raiders signed him...Plus those sources do qualify as "significant coverage" there are probably some more out there too.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 02:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All I have to say is that if someone with Felton's life accomplishments is notable, Wikipedia needs higher standards.► Chris Nelson Holla! 02:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - Almost passes WP:ATH, but he didn't actually play at the fully professional level of his sport since he was only on the offseason/practive squad. There is enough non-trivial coverage of him in reliable sources out there to establish notability as a college player and his "membership" on a professional team.  Although failing WP:ATH doesn't automatically make him non-notable I haven't seen any coverage that makes him stand out in any way, hence the delete.  If he were to actually play professionally then he would warrant an article in my opinion.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 05:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are basing your delete vote mainly on Robert Felton not passing WP:ATHLETE. Why? Notability is not subjective. I agree with 's essay at User:Uncle G/On notability: Wikipedia editors determine whether the world has judged a subject to be notable by applying the primary notability criterion. If someone independent of the subject has gone to the effort of creating and publishing a non-trivial published work about it, then that someone clearly deems the subject to be notable. Wikipedia editors determine whether a subject is notable not by considering whether they themselves think that it is notable. They determine whether a subject is notable by looking for the existence of non-trivial, independently sourced, published works on the subject. The sources I have cited are clearly non-trivial, so there is no reason for deletion. Whether or not Felton is famous or "stands-out" should have no bearing on his notability. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, notability ≠ importance. Notability is a guideline to help measure whether there are, or are likely to be, sufficient sources to write a V, NPOV, NOR article. What's key here is that the article is able to meet policy WP:CSP. Double Blue  (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm on the fence, in part as I know precious little about American football, okay, about any footie ball. Most pro athletes have high-profile careers if only because they were famous and after they retire from their sport they are a famous person doing some other job ala - "former pro footballer now sells insurance." This only gives a sentence for our purposes here but it's worth stating; many pro-athletes are a lot more visible than that. Cunard, or someone?, could you have a turn at sorting through the 160 or so news hits to see if any of these are for this Robert Felton? these 107 are listed as having no fee so might be a better place to start. If valid ones can be added to the article or at least listed here it may help folks see that there likely is or is not a WP:GNG threshold being met. -- Banj e  b oi   15:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I commented above notability is not subjective. It doesn't matter if Felton is "famous". What matters is that Felton has received coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. My "keep" vote above lists five in-depth reliable sources that prove Felton's notability. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Based on the sources already presented and the likelyhood that more certainly exist i think this person passes GNG and the article thus can be fixed through regular editing and deletion is unneeded. -- Banj e  b oi   01:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up and expanded the article through regular editing. If there is any other important facts that I have failed to include, please post them on the talk page, so I can include them in the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I came across something else that might be relevant to this discussion. WP:MILL states that local newspapers covering college athletes, even though they are reliable sources, do not neccesarily help to determine the notability of a college athlete.  "It has already been accepted that professional athletes, regardless of their accomplishments in their field, may have articles. But local newspapers also cover high school and college athletes. In every city and town, there are several high schools and colleges and papers that cover them. So inevitably, these athletes will receive coverage."  Additionally WP:MILL "is not a policy, but may be consulted for assistance during and AfD discussion."  The Toronto Star and Buffalo News articles certainly fall outside this.  They, however, only commented on him because he was signed to the Bills.  Whether this is or isn't enough for him to be notable seems like a very fine line to me - just like whether or not he is still a professional athlete because he was signed even though he didn't play a single actual game.  Also my former statement about him not "standing out" was poor wording on my part.  Notability is not subjective.  I'm just still not totally convinced the he is (or perhaps isn't) notable.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 01:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Local newspapers do cover college athletes, but there is no reason to disqualify these sources because of this. Wikipedia is not made of paper, so we can have as many articles as we want, as long as they pass WP:BIO. Because there are a variety of nontrivial newspaper articles (some local, some non-local) about this athlete, I strongly believe that he passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2009 (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.