Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Norton

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! 08:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Norton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an inspirational magazine feature, not an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.~~ MT Train^Discuss 05:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the above; already previously listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Division III is not the thing notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is that supposed to mean? Carrite (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he appears to be in reliable sourced media for his paralysis from his injury and his ongoing recovery. --RAN (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate it for deletion on the basis of notability ; I nominated it as advocacy, and NOT ADVOCACY is a basic policy. An encyclopedia does not contain advocacy, regardless of notability or available sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would it be advocating? --RAN (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see below, RAN, it isn't clear till you get to the end of the article. A primitive technique to hid advertising, but it seems to have worked. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a willful misreading of the policy page. Utterly inapplicable. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not get it, can you quote what you find objectionable, is it the foundation he started? Has whatever you are seeing been removed already? --RAN (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, as evidenced by the references in the article. I agree the article is a bit too advocatorial in nature, but that can be fixed by editing out that tone, not by deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obvious fulfillment of GNG based on sources already showing in the piece. Potential for Speedy Keep here, in fact, as there is no valid grounds for deletion presented, only a novel thesis about the biography's subject matter somehow making it unsuitable for encyclopedic biography. I suggest the nominator might want to step back from AfD nominations for a while, this is not the first recent one that leaves me scratching my head. Carrite (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest deletion based on notability or lack of sources. This is fundamentally Advocacy for SCI CAN Foundation, and for his speaking career. This is exactly what a page for him in a speakers' bureau listing would include: a emotionally laden description, and then an implied appeal for funds at the bottom. WP seems to have been developing a tendency to accept the sympathetic, and is losing its understanding of NOT TABLOID; it's destroying our perceptions. I hope some otherwise sensible people will reconsider. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I don't see any coverage here outside of human interest stories.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Non-notable college athlete gets his neck broken, gets some coverage (BLP1E). His (partial) recovery somehow inspires him to establish a an organization "to help others" and to raise funds by public speaking. These activities generate some (rather advertorial) media coverage, generally of the inspiration porn "tearjerker" type, in a variety of publications, a few of which are usually well regarded as RS. Per nom, there's very little actual "meat on the bones" of the sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just based on DIII college football career, it's a no--but there's more to this than football. The widespread coverage of later events in life seem to generate more than enough to pass WP:GNG. Any concerns about article content can be cleaned up in editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Concerns with advocacy can be addressed by copy editing the article, rather than deleting it in entirety. Also, the subject meets WP:BASIC, as per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.