- 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Cameron Botticelli
- Cameron Botticelli ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This athlete has not played any games in the NFL or any other top-level league yet, and does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON. No notable coverage/awards related to college football, either. This is WP:TOOSOON. ~ Rob Talk 23:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. Press coverage needs to be evaluated to determine whether he passes WP:GNG. A quick search reveals some significant coverage in mainstream media sources, e.g., this this, and this. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment from what I can find it's all "Minnesota" coverage and not necessarily widespread... but the hunt is not over. I believe we will end up keeping this one, but let's let the discussion run its course.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't fully evaluated, but it should be noted that the media outlets found so far are not small local papers, but rather the state's largest metropolitan dailies, the
St. Paul Pioneer Press and the
Star Tribune.
Cbl62 (
talk) 03:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't fully evaluated, but it should be noted that the media outlets found so far are not small local papers, but rather the state's largest metropolitan dailies, the
St. Paul Pioneer Press and the
Star Tribune.
Cbl62 (
talk) 03:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I'm of the opinion that for a college athlete to qualify as notable without winning major awards, the coverage must be exceptional (i.e. national coverage). This seems to be in-line with the examples of "significance" for college athletes listed at WP:NCOLLATH, where they suggest significance is achieved by national coverage (or awards/hall of fame, which doesn't apply here as far as I can tell). A few bio pieces in regional newspapers is typical of most starters at top-level programs, but that is a result of the notability of the team, not the notability of the individual. ~ Rob Talk 04:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Rob -- I am not advocating that this article be kept, but your comment misconstrues the manner in which WP:NCOLLATH has been applied. NCOLLATH has been interpreted as an inclusive one: if an athlete passes it, he's probably good to go. But if he/she doesn't pass NCOLLATH, he/she may still be shown to satisfy WP:GNG. In assessing college football players under GNG, I typically give lesser weight to small-town newspapers, greater weight to major metropolitan newspapers and regional newspapers, and the greatest weight to national media outlets. But there is no precedent for requiring national coverage or for ignoring regional coverage. It's an overall balance that's required, and in applying that balance, I often vote to delete college football bios; in this case, I'm on the fence. Cbl62 ( talk) 05:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 13:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 13:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete WP:UNOPPOSED comes to mind here. I haven't made the time to research it, and apparently no one else has either. We can always re-create it later if deletion proves to be the wrong decision. I believe the nominator made a good faith nomination and this can function like a WP:PROD.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:01, 7 July 2015 (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.