Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Duplantis


 * 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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve Duplantis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable as athlete, support for athletes not inherently notable, Wikipedia is not a memorial Chris (クリス) (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable individual. Lugnuts (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of material in Bud, Sweat and Tees and the various news and reports and responses from golfers he has worked with to have an article. Catchpole (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Being the creator of this article i want to see my article stay. But even so he was one of the famous caddie's. He worked with several famous golfers and has made several major news sources. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions.   —Catchpole (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I know I'm supposed to argue from the guidelines, but doggoneit, Xymmax's Corrolary to WP:N is if people unrelated to you care that you died, you're notable. Mr. Duplantis was memorialized by the LA Times here, Fox Sports, Golf.com, Washington Post, ESPN.com and others (only citing the first since they all used AP feed) here. I believe he's notable based on the sources available now, and I strongly suspect that within a day or two we'll see appreciation bio type stories that will make it even easier to improve the article. Xymmax (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficiently notable contribution to society. Getting mention in an article or articles and working with celebrities is not enough. Same as trying to creating a page for a researcher with an extensive publication list, collaborating with very well known scientists - the researcher him/herself needs to have provided something notable to society (a remarkable deliverable, like vaccine, therapeutic, etc). This caddy did not provide anything sufficiently notable to society, beyond his duties. acrsaved (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)
 * Note: acrsaved has no other edits, so possible single purpose account. Catchpole (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - he may have worked with famous golfers, but not when those individuals were at the top of their game. "He worked with Jim Furyk early in his career" when Furyk had no rating to speak of, and the other golfers named are lucky to play in one tournament a year, either from not playing or being cut.  Therefore, I don't even see notability by association here, which is about the only way  it could be justified.  I'm also not convinced that Duplantis' appearance in the book is at all notable, as the book is ostensibly about Rich Beem, and DuPlantis happened to be his caddy at the time.  In the other golf books DuPlantis is mentioned in, he only appears by name twice. MSJapan (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - not noteable. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Aritcle only created after the subject died.....as Chris said, Wikipedia is not a memorial.  Also, when did caddies become notable???  "They work with famous people".....so do hairstylists and costumers in the movies, and if any of those had Wikipedia articles, I'd vote for deletion there as well.  Finally, had anyone who does NOT follow the PGA ever heard of him?Joshcating (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This is Joshcating's first edit since October 2007, less than 15 edits overall. Catchpole (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: Does that make my opinion invalid?  Tell you what, if it makes you feel so good, keep the damn article.  I no longer give a rat's ass, I have work to do.  I might also add that Catchpole needs to get a life. Joshcating (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per above, non-notable. Cheers, L  A  X  18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. as co-subject of Bud, Sweat and Tees (NY Times book review) whose off-course lifestyle earned him a reputation. Canuckle (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

— Michaelbto (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial as some people said and when did caddies become so famous? i could see pga tour players but not caddies. I want a delete ASAP. Thank you for taking the time to read this. P.S Making an article after the death is way to soon. i could see 3 months before the death but not right after the death.--Pookeo9 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep For any golf fan, Steve Duplantis, is on the same level as other caddies like Steve Williams, who already has an article on Wikipedia, or Fluff Cowen. In fact, Duplantis' love of late night partying makes him an even more interesting figure.  He was a wild party animal with an uncanny ability to make every golfer he works with better.  Being a caddie is much more about carrying a bad and reading a yardage book.  You have to be a friend, confidant, mentor, psychologist, and teacher.  Steve had all these qualities...provided he could make the tee time.  Many highly respected figures in the golf world, Jim Nantz, Alan Shipnuk, and Gary McCord to name a few, feel that Steve was a MAJOR contributing factor to Rich Beem's 1990 PGA Championship.  That alone makes him worthy..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelrhoover (talk • contribs) 02:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)   — Michaelrhoover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Xymmax (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no lasting significance or impact; article mainly exists, I would submit, because he's just died. Biruitorul (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems notable in golf terms. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keepy - me want keepy. me want it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.12.243 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this non-article. Zero information. And mind you, I'm what people call here an inclusionist. &lt;K  F&gt;  16:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This guy is a caddy. He's not notable. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 16:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, since April 2006, there has been a Category:American caddies but, as someone has remarked above, this one wouldn't have an article if he hadn't died in an accident. &lt;K  F&gt;  17:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Of the six people in the category, one wasn't famous for being a caddy (Brandon Lang), and all the others were people with 30+ years of experience and multiple major tournament wins over a span of years for their golfers, who were folks like Nicklaus and Woods.  One guy had a very unique claim as being the caddy for a US Open winner at the age of 10. If unique experiences or long-term experience are considered as a reasonable barometer of notability, Duplantis doesn't really meet those criteria as the article stands, nor does it appear that he could. MSJapan (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it clean when speaking of the deceased. Individual seems to be notable based on media coverage, and domain name speculators. MichaelBTO 16:30, January 26, 2008
 * Keep. Non-trivial mentions in many significant reliable sources, fits the definition of notability of a biographical subject. He's even featured prominently (it is claimed) in a book.  That most of the articles were written upon his death does not add or subtract to his notability - we can evaluate them for what they are.  The article is about his life, not his death, and we can reasonably ask whether the articles establish that there is interest in his life.  Given that ESPN, Reuters, the Torronto Star, and the San Diego Union Tribute devoted articles to him, plus the book, the answer appears to be yes.  On the merits, notability is a question of whether something is worth knowing about.  He is not a major figure but there is some good material there that adds to an encyclopedic understanding of the world so the answer there too is yes.  Wikidemo (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many bios are in poor shape and can be greatly improved. It would help to explain his notability as he may be one of the more famous or accomplished caddy's of which, I imagine, we have little coverage. Benjiboi 02:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Working for famous people does not in itself make one notable.  What's next, babysitters and gardeners and mechanics and proctologists of famous people?  The only reason this article was created was because the guy died.  Is he notable because he stepped off a curb and got hit by a taxi?  Okay, it was one of the worst accidents in recent memory to befall a non-notable individual who worked for (some) notable people, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Qworty (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Disagree. He seems to have been well known prior and according to several accounts was so good he was repeatedly hired even after his "personal demons" got him fired from one job after the next.. Benjiboi 10:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Well-known" because a self-described hysterical pregnant woman is talking about him on page 209 of an obscure book? "Notable" because he could get a job after being fired from a job?  These are surely not the WP criteria for notability.  Millions of people are mentioned in old books.  Tens of millions of people lose a job and then get another one.  These are not the criteria for notability, and there is indeed no notability here. Qworty (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Profession is not a reason to delete. We do not automatically include actors, nor delete caddies. There are enough independent sources to establish notability. the_undertow   talk  22:58, 28 January 2008 (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.