Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Robinson (American football)

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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Robinson (American football)

Fails WP:ATHLETE, no significant media coverage to pass WP:N. Grsz¹¹ 17:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, better do your homework. He was signed by the Denver Broncos on Sunday, see Denver Post. Therefore keep. --bender235 (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does signing have anything to do with playing? Grsz¹¹ 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they signed him to hand out the Gatorade cups. --bender235 (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this argument fails WP:CRYSTAL unless you can demonstrate that drafted players in the NFL are almost certain to play in the NFL, which is the requirement clearly laid out. Can you? And if not, why are you making up arbitrarily new guidelines for notability on the fly rather than opening a discussion where bright lines for notability can be discussed?DSZ (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't drafted, yet he was signed. Did you read that? S-I-G-N-E-D. Unless he suffers a career ending injury in training camp, he will play in 2009. --bender235 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which, of course, is false. A significant percentage of players drafted, especially in later rounds, do not go on to play in an NFL game. Randomly spelling out letters in all caps does not have an effect on facts. After all, there are 864 more roster spots in training camp in the NFL than on active rosters. DSZ (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - In this case, there's a good argument for notability, but again, he's not notable simply because he was taken in the draft. If you don't like the guidelines of WP:ATHLETE or the more general standards for notability, start up a discussion about changing them, don't simply decide to ignore the ones you don't like. I would suggest you do your homework, which involves going over the standards for notability and reviewing the guidelines from WP:ATHLETE. DSZ (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Solid media coverage, productive college linebacker, now signed to a pro team.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm finding a lot more sources about him than in the similar case of Nick Schommer. DSZ (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiousty, where? It's always a challenge finding media with a common name. "lee robinson" alcorn (then "News" at the top) gives me 12 hits, all of which are just trivial mention. Grsz¹¹ 17:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - [[1]] The Natchez Democrat article for one, is solely about him and lists his awards/feats and the Las Cruces Sun-News [[2]] talks about him non-trivially. I'm not wedded to it (I probably should have said Weak Keep), but I think there's just enough meat here to edge Robinson over the line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Szymborski (talk • contribs) 17:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Plays professional football and last I checked the NFL is the highest level.--Giants27 ^T/C 20:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment When has he played professional football? Grsz¹¹ 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I said Keep as well, Robinson has not played professional football and is not notable based on that reasoning. Again, WP:CRYSTAL requires the future notable event to be *almost certain* to convey notability, not merely likely or probable. DSZ (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed vote to Delete, mistakenly thought he was drafted.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Featured articles by the Las Cruces Sun-News [3] and Natchez Democrat [4]. Others cited by Cbl62 below. I think he meets WP:BIO. Strikehold (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree and feel he meets WP:BIO. My main concern at this point is that a number of people are trying to develop ad hoc standards for athletic notability without any kind of discussion or debate. Nothing can be resolved if people are free to make up their own standards on the fly. DSZ (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could find thousands of such articles about high school players. Are they notable too? One or two doesn't cut it; significant coverage is needed. Grsz¹¹ 20:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, I don't see local newspapers to be "significant coverage" Secret ^account 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Changing back to keep, per Cbl62. Being a "local newspaper" does not preclude it being a reliable source. "Significant", as used by the guideline, refers to the extent of coverage, not to the source. Strikehold (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm surpriced with all the keeps here, right now he fails WP:ATHLETE, there has been long-standing consensus that players who didn't play one game in the pros doesn't deserve an article. I could see exceptions made for Draft Picks, but he was never drafted. Secret ^account 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He signed a contract with the Broncos, for god's sake! --bender235 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't mean anything, there is a high-possibility that he will be cut before training camp, which makes him fail WP:ATHLETE. WP:ATHLETE requires to play at least one game in the NFL, not to be signed by a team. Recreate if he makes the final roster, but right now Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball to decide if he's gonna make the final cut or not. Secret ^account 21:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:ATHLETE doesn't require anything since it's not a policy.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's part of WP:BIO, which is policy. Secret ^account 21:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get technical, but no, it is not policy. It is a guideline. Strikehold (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point remains.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you aren't going to counter, that means I'm right? Secret ^account 21:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means you need a new and better argument. ;-) ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Wikipedia policies and guidelines take precedence over Chris Nelson's Ad Hoc Rules for Notability. You haven't presented a cogent argument how this article is notable under any existing policy or guideline. You haven't made any effort to open up a discussion or debate of reasonable changes to WP:ATHLETE that you feel would improve Wikipedia and would make your argument valid. Either actually make a point that argues notability, which you have not done yet, or it's going to become increasingly difficult to assume good faith. Complaining that you don't like the guidelines or policies is not an argument. DSZ (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither have you, since WP:ATHLETE is a guideline not a policy and we can choose to follow it if we want to.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, you can choose not to follow it, provided you can demonstrate a reason based on discussion and consensus. Since nobody's involved is bothering to go to WP:ATHLETE and improve the guidelines, it's hard to believe that there's any effort being made to reach a consensus on new guidelines. There is no WP:ANYARBITRARYTHINGCHRISNELSONPULLSOUTOFHISBUTTISOK that has been developed by consensus. DSZ (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice, as a failure of WP:CRYSTAL. Simply being signed means nothing until he actually makes the team. Tavix | Talk 22:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search for news coverage on Robinson didn't turn up quite as much from major publications as Jaymar Johnson. That's in part due to the fact that he comes from Mississippi and played for an all-black school that doesn't get too much publicity. Given the regional issue, there's a fair amount of mainstream, non-trivial coverage in newspapers, mostly from Mississippi, but some from elsewhere also. Here's what I came up with in searching for media coverage on Robinson: (1) "Lee Robinson a standout on Alcorn State defense", Las Cruces Sun-News, October 4, 2008, (2) "Alcorn follows lead of senior Robinson", The Clarion-Ledger (Jackson, MS), November 20, 2008, (3) "Robinson expectant for draft: LB performed in NFL combine", The Natchez Democrat, April 18, 2009, (4) "NFL: The Skinny; Unsung Hero Lee Robinson", Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI), April 23, 2009, (5) "Feel no pain", The Clarion-Ledger (Jackson, MS), November 19, 2006. Cbl62 (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but if he gets cut before the season then delete, but he is notable now.--Yankees10 23:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not possible. If he is notable now, he will be in the future. Strikehold (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which means the opposite should apply. It should be delete unless he becomes notable by playing in the future. Grsz¹¹ 00:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion misses a key point. A college football player doesn't have to play pro ball to be notable. If a college player wins a major award or receives significant, non-trivial coverage in the press, then he meets the general standard for notability -- even if he never plays a game in the NFL or CFL. Playing a game in the NFL is an automatic ground for notability, but a college player can be notable without it. In Robinson's case, there is non-trivial media coverage in the form of feature articles about him in three or four newspapers. Not a slam dunk, but enough in my view. And that won't change if he gets cut from an NFL team. Cbl62 (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not well-versed enough in the field to make a solid decision, but I feel I should mention I agree with Cbl62. Notability guidelines are guidelines for inclusion, not exclusion. When someone meets the criteria, they should be included, but failing one type of criteria is not enough to be excluded. WP:GNG can still apply. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 28 April 2009 (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.