Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scooter Berry (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Multiple sources were located that detail various aspects of the subjects life and playing career. Until there is consensus that the GNG not apply in cases in which a more specific guideline (like WP:ATHLETE) applies, there's not much question that the coverage here is sufficient for the GNG. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  12:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Scooter Berry
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet criteria for Notability_(sports) or WP:ATHLETE. Just because he played college level sports does not make him notable enough for an article, if this was the threshold then we'd have MILLIONS of pages like this. — raeky  t  05:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —Paul McDonald (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep over 700 articles on Google News alone, some which have specific details and feature the subject. Widespread coverage about his college football career more than surpasses general notability guideline even if WP:NSPORTS is not met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject fails WP:GNG by lacking significant coverage in secondary sources. Significant "means that sources address the subject directly in detail", not that there are a large number of trivial sources. Simply looking at raw numbers from a WP:GOOGLETEST is not sufficient when the hits are WP:ROUTINE coverage and do not establish notability. The subject did not win a national college football award to meet the criteria in WP:NSPORTS. Two of the five sources used in the article deal with an arrest and subsequent suspension, but his notability is not established by this WP:ONEVENT. Also, a significant amount of text in the article comes from the source MSNSportsnet.com, which is his school's website. This is not an WP:Independent sources and is not allowed for establishing notability per WP:Notability.  —Bagumba (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I'm striking out reasons above after Cbl62 (below) found some non-routine sources out of the 700 sources (your effort is commended!). However, I'm still looking over Berry's accomplishments, and IMO its WP:Run-of-the-mill. His notability in a nutshell IMO is that he was twice named 2nd team all-Big East. He received significant coverage about comebacks from injuries, run in with the law, and academic ineligibility. If he was a consensus All-American at least, I would have less of an issue. If he makes it into the NFL, his notability becomes less in doubt, but that is not guaranteed at this point looking at draft projections. I will invoke the "presumed" clause in GNG, "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."  It is subjective, but is allowed by GNG. and it is subject to consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your willingness to reconsider your position and take a second look. But I don't see any reason to reject the presumption of notability in this case given the widespread news coverage.  While GNG does permit it, the application of such a subjective "jury nullification" stance should be reserved for extraordinary cases IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable per WP:GNG. Berry is also unlikely to be drafted or play professionally.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. College football players who have received significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media are eligible for inclusion under WP:GNG.  The overwhelming majority of college football players do not meet that standard, and very few defensive players (or linemen of any type) get that kind of media attention.  But Berry clearly does.  He even meets WP:NSPORTS since he has received coverage in the national media.  He was a key defensive player on the 2007 West Virginia Mountaineers football team that beat #3 Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl and wound up as the #6 team in the country.  I could compile a much longer list, but examples of non-trivial media coverage about Berry include: (1) Scooter Berry looking to atone for lost '09, ESPN, 9/2/10, (2) Berry leaves Gwaltney's shadow, carves out promising WVU situation, Newsday, 12/31/06, (3)  West Virginia's Berry slowly recovering, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/14/09, (4) Scooter Berry anchors defensive line at West Virginia, Newsday, 8/30/09, (5) WVU suspends Berry indefinitely, ESPN, 10/20/09, (6) Berry gearing up for comeback year, Times West Virginian, 8/9/10, (7)' Now or nothing' season for Berry, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, 8/9/10, (8) Berry ready to emerge from shadow of his brother, Charleston Gazette, 8/17/06, (9) Berry no stranger to Backyard Brawl, Times West Virginian, 11/23/10, (10) WVU's Berry: 'I'm back', Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 8/25/10, (11) Berry primed to be ‘D’ leader, The Register-Herald, 8/16/10, (12) WVU FOOTBALL Old man of the D Six-year vet Berry ready for one last go-round, Charleston Gazette, 8/9/10, (13) DT Berry: 'I feel like I'm about 40': Determined to leave his woes behind, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, 8/8/10, (14) Ruckus costs Berry, Newsday, 11/13/09, (15) BERRY'S SLOW RECOVERY HELPS BUILD DEPTH IN LINE, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/14/09, (15) Berry expects to play, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, 10/7/09, (16) Berry hoping to find field Saturday, Times West Virginian, 9/17/09, (17) Berry savors role as leader, Charleston Gazette (and McClatchy-Tribune Regional News), 8/17/09, (18) Junior tackle Berry putting in his summer work, The Jackson Herald, 6/9/09, (19) Bowl could be reunion for Berry and his mom, Charleston Gazette, 12/19/08, (20) Berry, half-brother go different directions, Times West Virginian, 11/24/08, (21) Waiting for WVU offense to become Berry good, too, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, 10/5/08, (22) WVU's Berry making name for himself, Times West Virginian, 10/5/08, (23) Berry anxious to start Mountaineer football season, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, 8/28/08, (24) WVU's Scooter Berry doesn't miss offense, Charleston Daily Mail, 6/16/08, (25) Berry is young leader on D-line, Times West Virginian, 6/12/08, (26) Berry is 'looking forward to playing a leadership role', The Register-Herald (Beckley, WV), 6/11/08, (27) Berry is accepting leadership role at WVU, Charleston Daily Mail, 3/19/08, (28) Gwaltney's half-brother emerging: Scooter Berry will start on the Mountaineer defensive line Saturday, Charleston Daily Mail, 8/28/07. Cbl62 (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All that appears to be WP:ROUTINE, to be notable as a college athlete you have to meet the criteria listed here Notability_(sports), he needs to of won a national award or be covered in national news for something other than him playing basketball. He does NOT meet the criteria listed Notability_(sports), and a big list of blog posts, local news articles and WP:ROUTINE sports news coverage does not make him notable either. — raeky  t  05:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely incorrect in asserting that a college athlete must pass NSPORT to be notable. NSPORT is an inclusionary standard.  In this case, he passes NSPORT due to national media coverage.  But even if he didn't pass NSPORT, a college football player is included if he passes GNG due to significant, non-trivial media coverage.  See closing admin's comments at Articles for deletion/Obi Egekeze.  Here, Berry has been the subject of dozens of articles that cover him specifically and in detail.  These include multiple stories in ESPN.com, Newsday (the 12th largest circulation newspaper in the US), the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (another major metropolitan newspaper; #36 in circulation in the US) and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (#38 in circulation in the US).  This is not routine coverage like passing references in game coverage or statistical summaries or an article in a small hometown newspaper.  Anyone who has had this level of news coverage in the mainstream media is unquestionably notable -- regardless of occupation.  It seems that some would set the bar far higher for athletes than for any other category of persons, and that is not appropriate.  Cbl62 (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete non notable college football player--Yankees10 03:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – I suspect that more college football players prove to be notable than might be expected, due to the popularity of the sport here in the U.S. Forgetting the local West Virginia-based newspaper articles up there, the ESPN, Newsday, and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette articles show enough coverage to meet WP:GNG.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 16:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep basically per Giants2008 and the sources Cbl62 has provided. Berry passes the general notability guideline, which makes it irrelevant as to whether he passes the subject-specific guideline anyway (although a case could easily be made that basic criteria of WP:NSPORTS states that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" so Berry also passes NSPORTS). Jenks24 (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - cbl62's source list indiciates that he easily surpasses the GNG, which supersedes the NSPORT requirements. matt91486 (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Plethora of available sources means subject passes WP:GNG; now, someone with access to the sources should add them to the article. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. In three AfDs for this article, a clear majority has voted each time to "keep."  The cumulative vote count is 13-6, with roughly the same proportion voting to "keep" this time.  With that consistent record, I suggest it's time to close this as "keep" rather than "no consensus." Cbl62 (talk) 00:49, 24 April 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.