Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronnie Fouch


 * 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. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronnie Fouch

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:N's guidelines on college athletes, as he has not: won a national award or established a major Division I (NCAA) record, been inducted into the the College Football Hall of Fame or gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. TM 14:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep a simple click of the "news" link in the nomination shows a good amount of significant coverage, well within the general notability guideline. While the subject does indeed fail WP:ATHLETE and other sports-specific measures, the subject more than exceeds requirements for general notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What 'good amount of significant coverage' are you referring to? He briefly played quarterback for a college football team, so ofcourse he there is some coverage, but it hardly passes GNG. If you are referring to this and this, they are hardly more than local news articles which establish little to nothing about the player other than he was in fact briefly a starting quarterback for a losing NCAA football team. Other than that, I am not seeing anything even close to being non-trivial.--TM 05:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh Okay we'll play it your way:
 * 1) The Seattle Times is a nationally-read newspaper with nationwide coverage. I suppose one could argue (though many would disagree) that it would be a regional paper.  It certainly is not "local" coverage.
 * 2) Fox Sports has a nice photo and brief article here (which could be notable because it's a combined MSN/FOX article... but that's another story)
 * 3) ESPN has a nice article here about his major involvement in one game in particular
 * 4) WTHI-TV Terra Haute shows an article that features him. That would be more "local" coverage, but it certainly lends credence
 * 5) The Tuscon Citizen paper covers him here when he stepped into the starting role at UW.
 * 6) Spokane Review another major article, this in a regional paper.
 * 7) USA Today article has several paragraphs on his generally-accepted poor performance in one particular game (in addition to the routine statistics at the top of the page)
 * 8) Indiana Stateman provides another regional news article
 * 9) The New York Post seems to think enough to mention him in this article snd provide a photo
 * 10) Los Angeles Times It's a pay-per-view article, but the search engine shows that he's mentioned in this article too (The free abstract doesn't mention him).
 * 11) Google News returns 900+ articles. Some are about a high school football lineman and obviously not about the subject in question, but I'd encourage you to take a closer look.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply being mentioned in an article on a game he played it is of absolutely no matter here. It all falls under WP:ROUTINE. GNG states "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." How many of these sources could you use to actually write something resembling an actual article? The ESPN (simple review of an individual game, like all other games played in NCAA throughout entire year), Fox Sports, Terra Haute, Tucson Citizen and Spokane Review (see ESPN) are all extremely trivial. They are not in-depth at all and simply state he played in a few games. I suggest you re-read GNG and ponder what you think the words trivial and in-depth mean.--TM 14:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we disagree. I find the information provided in those articles (and the 900-or-so others) excellent and an ongoing indication of notability of the individual and not trivial at all.  The sources most definitely go into detail of thie subject, the coverage is far beyond the "routine" coverage of game scores and statistics, they absolutely are more than trivial mentions, and they certainly could be added to the article in question--if I have time later today or tomorrow I will do so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think "Mobile quarterbacks usually cause fits for the Wildcats, but UA had to change up its extensive defensive preparation when Washington’s Jake Locker went down with a broken thumb last week against Stanford. Ronnie Fouch, more of a pocket passer, will start his first game for the Huskies." is in-depth coverage, (as you claim regarding the Tucson article), then I hope you seriously look up the definition of in-depth.--TM 15:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim "in-depth coverage" with the Tuscon article. The only time those words appear on this page are in your comments, not in mine (save for this entry by me).  Please refrain from manufacturing arguments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is sufficient non-trivial coverage to establish general notability.  See, for example, the following articles which are written with Fouch as the subject, not just passing references in game coverage: (1) UW's Fouch taking charge: Freshman quarterback has coach's confidence, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 10/2/08; (2) Huskies see Ronnie Fouch at his best, worst, Seattle Times, 10/19/08; (3) Huskies new starter Ronnie Fouch has been a quarterback all his life, Seattle Times, 10/1/08; (4) Confident Fouch prepares for first UW start at Arizona, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 9/29/08; (5) QB Ronnie Fouch playing?, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 11/15/07; (6) Ronnie Fouch gaining confidence as Jake Locker sits with injury, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 8/12/08; (7) Tough beginning for Ronnie Fouch, Seattle Times, 10/6/08; (8) Washington's Ronnie Fouch transferring to Indiana State, Seattle Times, 1/17/10; (9) Prom will have to wait: Fouch has QB job to win, The News-Tribune, Tacoma, WA, 4/17/07. Cbl62 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Further note on the issue of what constitutes sufficient coverage to establish general notabilty. While I agree with TM that some local media outlets are entitled to less weight, that agreement doesn't apply here.  This would apply to a small town newspaper running a story on the local high school football team, but it does not IMO apply to feature stories in major metropolitan newspapers.  In this case, we have multiple feature stories on Fouch both in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seattle Times.  These are Pulitzer Prize-winning metropolitan newspapers serving the State of Washington, which has a population (6.7 million) greater than most of the world's nations, including Libya, Denmark, El Salvador and Nicaragua.  If we were to deem the major media outlets serving areas of such size to be "local" and therefore irrelevant in assessing general notability, that would represent a drastic change in our notability standards. Cbl62 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes General notability guideline with high school career alone, muchless contributions as starter on two CFB programs and NFL draft prospects. Pasadena91 (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2011 (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.