Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Mendenhall (2nd 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. (non-admin closure) '''-- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riley_Huntley/You_missed! Cheers, ] Ri l ey   ''' 00:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Walter Mendenhall
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

From PROD removed per WP:PROD: This player never even made a regular season NFL roster and has not been in training camp since 2010. There is no other evidence of professional experience on the page, and his college career is unimpressive. He's just a Jo-schmo He only has a page since his brother, who is now being phased out of the NFL, is famous. Illia Connell (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Personally, I am simpathetic to those who make inseason practice squads, but I find no evidence that he even achieved that level of notability. He was not a star and there is nothing but incidental mentions of some college play. Maybe there might be some sibling rivalry stories surrounding his more famous younger brother from the Illinois campus newspapers that would give us a biographical sketch, but until such sources are revealed, I would have to agree that notability is not established.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WEAK Keep Upon review of AFD1, I see some sources such as this that qualify this article for WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no reason to change my position from the last AFD. The sources provided in the last AFD by User:Cbl62 are good arguments for keeping this article.  It looks like additional information has come online in the last three and a half years to provide even more arguments in favor of notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator is under the misapprehension that a football player is a "Joe-schmo" and not notable unless he plays in the NFL. College players qualify under WP:GNG if they have received significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media.  Mendenhall has received such coverage, some of which was mentioned in the last AfD.  I have now expanded the article a bit and added some of that coverage, which includes non-trivial stories about this person in ESPN.com, The Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, Chicago Tribune, and Chicago Sun-Times.  IMO there's plenty to satisfy general notability standards, and I see no reason to change my position from the last AFD.  Cbl62 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough sources provided to indicate notability.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C) 19:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of coverage from reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2012 (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.