Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommie Campbell


 * 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   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Tommie Campbell

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:ATH. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Was selected in the 2011 NFL Draft.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  19:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Being drafted does not meet any inclusion criteria.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  23:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, drafted status, much like being on an active roster and not playing, needs to be discussed further.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - If he was signed this year then he should be playing very soon. I think its a huge waste of time to delete the article based on him not yet playing a game and then turn around and recreate it a month later. --Kumioko (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to speculate whether Campbell will ever play in an NFL game this year or ever.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  02:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but it defies common sense that we would delete them assuming that they won't either. I am not a huge sports watcher and I do not closely follow NFL but I have to assume that if they drafted the guy then they are probably going to want to get their money out of them. At least once or twice. Frankly with all the low quality articles that could be deleted I get a little tired of seeing articles like this get deleted and then 3 days to a month later they get resurrected because they suddenly become notable. Its a huge waste of everyones time IMO. --Kumioko (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seventh-round draft picks only sometimes make their respective teams. Other than that, I agree with you that the timing is off for this nomination.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  02:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually Tennessee Titans have an excellent record with 7th round draft picks 2 in the last 4 years have made the Pro Bowl. Marc Mariani in 2010 as well as Courtland Finnegan in 2008.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.81.25 (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. NSPORTS does not automatically assume notability of drafted players, let alone players drafted in the seventh and last round. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article.  He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete - The rule of thumb for inclusion of American football players is pretty straightforward — play a game in the NFL: IN; don't play a game in the NFL: OUT. Having this rule saves us from having to parse sources for hundreds of NFL hopefuls, it's very simple and easy. Obviously, there are collegiate superstars worthy of inclusion before playing professionally, but this One Size Fits Most notability criterion is extremely useful and should be observed. Carrite (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no such "rule of thumb." Nor should there be.  College football in the US is one of the biggest sports, on par with NFL, MLB, and NBA in terms of TV coverage, attendance, merchandising, etc.  College football players who meet WP:ATH (College athletics) or WP:GNG qualify even if they have never played a game in the NFL.  Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There certainly IS such a rule of thumb, as recent outcomes, closed by multiple administrators, indicate. If an article is started about a college star, that's one thing, and I don't think anyone would argue with a multiple reliable substantial sources argument in that case. But here we have a multitude of stub articles about pro draftees or free agent signees cropping up and retroactive cases made "oh, they USED to be a college star, see" are not gaining traction, nor should they. Baseball players generally need to play a pro game to get in, soccer players generally need to play a pro game to get in, and the same basic principle applies to football. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There certainly is NOT such a rule of thumb and never has been. College football players have always been allowed articles if they have sufficient non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media.  It doesn't matter what motivated someone to create the article -- that's irrelevant.  What matters is whether or not they pass WP:GNG, and this guy does.  And comparing college football to minor league baseball doesn't work.  Minor league baseball is a minor sport  -- never on TV, crowd sizes in the hundreds.  College football is as big in the US as any pro sport -- major teams on national TV every week, crowd sizes 100,000 per game, major media coverage.  College football is huge in the US and can't be compared to other amateur sports.  Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment.  Haven't had time to assess the sources, but here are examples of what appear to be non-trivial coverage of Campbell:, , , , , , , , , . Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I like an athlete who fails NSPORTS but is a candidate to qualify on GNG to have done something notable that is worth reading decades from now, so the lead paragraph must have the potential to be catchy. If I look at his college accomplishments, no indication of any all-league selections or school records being set on any other indication of enduring interest.  While he is better than most of us to have even played in college, he is WP:Run-of-the-mill considering the number of football players each year who enjoy some success in college have not—and might never— play professionally.  If he is notable to the school (though I don't believe so), he could be mentioned in the school football article. No prejudice to recreate if he ever plays professionally.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Having reviewed the sources referenced above, I think they meet WP:GNG.  They constitute in-depth coverage of Campbell's remarkable journey from Pennsylvania sprint champion through three college football programs and a two-year break working as an airport janitor after having academic problems.  He made good on the third chance given to him by Cal, and he was one of only eight Division II players invited to play at the 2011 Eastham Energy All-Star Game.  He also had the third fastest time (out of 300-plus participants) at the 2011 Cactus Bowl with a time of 4.31 in the 40-yard dash.  Campbell is a terrific comeback story who has received significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media.  Even if he doesn't make it in the NFL (and I'm crossing my fingers for the guy), he meets GNG based on the coverage of his story to date.  Cbl62 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudos to Cbl62's tireless research, but Campbell still seems run-of-the-mill. The Eastham Energy All-Star Game only started in 2011 and admitted "We're not trying to be the best all-star game (to start out.)" The Cactus Bowl is a Division II All-Star game, and not as notable as Division I, so his ranking relative to other participants there is not as significant.  In any event, football players are not considered notable based on practice times. —Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not his practice time, it's the extent of coverage given to Campbell and his college career. His story is a unique one that has garnered considerable coverage in the mainstream press.  Nor is it routine coverage such as passing references in game coverage or stat lines. It's feature story coverage about Campbell.  Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand and respect your perspective, although I dont agree with it. Your position is that the presence of non-trivial coverage is sufficient for inclusion, while I'm going beyond that and making a personal determination on whether those sources say he is notable. GNG allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." I will leave it to the administrator's determination of consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. And I'm not saying that even the slightest bit of non-trivial coverage is enough.  But when you have multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in mainstream media sources, that satisfy WP:GNG.  Cbl62 (talk) 23:11, 26 August 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.