Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Derrick

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Derrick

[edit]
Chris Derrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)A non-notable college athlete whose sole claim to significance is winning a single race at a track meet sponsored by his school. A speedy delete tag was removed by a non-admin, so the article is being brought here to establish consensus. I do not believe the subject meets WP:BIO standards, nor does he meet WP:ATHLETE standards, which covers: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." Pastor Theo (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my argument. WP:ATHLETE Criteria: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." Derrick has competed at the IAAF World Junior Championships, finishing 15th IN THE WORLD and helping the USA finis 8th (http://www.iaaf.org/wxc09/results/eventCode=4140/sex=M/discCode=XJ/combCode=hash/roundCode=f/results.html#det) He also holds a US Junior Record, and whatever people may say about it, he is the fasted US 5ker below 20. http://dailynews.runnersworld.com/2009/05/may-4.html?cm_mmc=RSS-_-rwrsshome-_-NA-_-NA That, along with his accomplishments as a High Schooler, qualify him as "notable".

  • If this page is deleted then it just exemplifies the United States' under-appreciation for the most raw and challenging of all sports. Why delete a page about an athlete who, in the near future, will probably be EXTREMELY notable!? There is legitimate evidence to prove that he'll be one of the best. As Rake wrote below, he beat WORLD JUNIOR mile record holder, German Fernandez, in the 5k. In the meet they were also a mere 10 seconds back from some big professional athletes as well. Athletes who have competed at the highest level of the sport. Chris Derrick will certainly be a significant name in the very near future. Nctrack09 (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)— Nctrack09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • He was the 2007-2008 Gatorade National Boys Cross Country Runner of the year. He won Nike Team Nationals in 2007 and was 2nd in the Footlocker Cross Country Championships. He ran 13:55 in the 5k, the fastest time ever by a high schooler in an all high school race. Most notably, he now holds the American Junior record in the 5k at 13:29.98. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.76.28 (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC) — 71.195.76.28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
He competed in the World (Junior) Championships, which is specifically mentioned in the ATHLETE Section. So...he obviously falls under it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.45.127 (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC) — 68.251.45.127 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment I think for student athletes as for students, a prize at a national or international level can be enough for notability. We usually havent accepted this, but I can think of no good reason why we should not do so. DGG (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike Fernandez and Jordan Hasay, Derrick's times do not match up internationally yet. Fernandez at one point at the top mile in the world (he hasn't run in weeks from the flu after the 5k) and Jordan Hasay has done more on the international stage with her 4th at World Jrs. against top runners from all over the world and her 10th at the Olympic Trials. Derrick doesn't deserve a Wikipedia page just yet. Also, though Derrick did do well in high school, MANY, MANY runners have competed on that national stage as well. All of those runners do not have wikipedia pages with the exception of people like Hasay, only because she is above and beyond the high school level and has legitimately competed internationally. I agree with the deletion of this article for now.00:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As people have said, he's beaten German Fernandez several times. That guy, Fernandez, has an extensive wikipedia article all to himself, and Derrick has equaled, if not bettered, his accomplishments. Derrick was All-American as a Senior in High School and as Freshman in College, he's won major races, and he's now a Junior Record holder. I think that qualifies him for an article. - mwr940 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwr940 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC) — Mwr940 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I would normally agree that he is not notable, but I believe the American Junior Record justifies the page. Fastest 5000m performance of any American under 19? Ever? It qualifies. --Rake (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pastor Theo he has competed in a world championship, the world junior cross country championships, where he finished 15th he also has finished 4th in the NCAA indoor 5000 meters, 5th in the NCAA indoor 3000 meters, 7th in the NCAA cross country championships, won Nike Team Nationals, finished 2nd at Footlocker Nationals and has set an America Record. To me the American record speaks for its self. Michak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment There appears to be something funny going on here. People who either have no previous history on Wikipedia or who have not been part of the community's discussion for one or two years are suddenly turning up on this page and only this page. I don't believe this is a coincidence. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pastor Theo, you are correct. There are a bunch of track jocks on a certain forum who have linked to this page and told everyone to give reasons/make up reasons on why this Derrick guy deserves a wikipedia page... though if you look at his "stats", they are not worthy of a Wikipedia page just yet. He has not beaten Fernandez "several" times (given to exaggerate 5+ I Assume), this second time he beat Fernandez was when Fernandez was sick and hadn't run for weeks. I agree with you that this article should be deleted. 98.234.70.165 (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been pointed out he competed in a World Championship where he placed 15th. That is one of the definitions of what makes someone notable enough to have a wikipedia page as an athlete. In addition he has two national records, one high school and one junior(Set in a year during which you remained younger than twenty(20) for the entirety of the year). I find it hard to believe that those credentials don't make someone deserving of a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.213.173 (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC) — 76.89.213.173 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: I find it dishonest that there are those who think themselves to be an authority on all disciplines of information and knowledge. Do chemists have the authority to pontificate on neurological-surgical procedures? No! Why not? Because they aren't qualified to do so. Why isn't a surgeon qualified to to tell a nurse anesthetist how to administer anesthesia during surgery. Because it is beyond his or her scope of training/education. Knowing a little about something doesn't make an individual an expert on said subject. It is one thing to edit an article and quite another to understand the culture and history of the topic. The problem here is that there is a lack of understanding of both the context and the significance of the performance, which is largely the result of a lack of understanding of the history and culture of the sport. Furthermore, to make qualitative judgements about any American distance runner or their performance without an understanding of the context or possessing a qualitative and quantitative understanding of the sport wreaks of academic dishonesty. I would seriously love to know the credentials of those who oppose CD's article. Those who seriously believe CD is a non-notable athlete would be considered to be ignorant (in this area) among those who are historians of the sport. So the question then becomes what qualifies someone to judge the merit of any American distance runner as it relates to a Wikipedia article? Unfortunately all that has been demonstrated thus far is a very limited scope of knowledge of the Amerian distance running pantheon. Is it too much to ask that the contributors demonstrate at least some level of academic integrity? Speedplay —Preceding unsigned
  • Note: Decltype, you are right I did redact (in jest) some of the content in the CD article. The redaction was a tongue-in-cheek response to those who pretend they know something about the sport or the history of the sport. I wasn't aware that an article for deletion could be "vanadalized" - I offer my apologies to the Wiki-community" —Preceding unsigned 12:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Derrick's resume of times, records, participation and success in national and international championships merits an article. The 15th best athlete in baseball, football and basketball all get wiki articles without a peep from the notability cops, as do the 150th best and 300th best. Derrick being the 15th best in the world should be accorded the same consideration.--Fizbin (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • -It should be noted as well, that in races that both men have competed and finished (German did not finish the NCAA cross country meet in 2008), Chris and German have a 2-2 record. Chris defeated German at the 2007 Footlocker National Championships in San Diego as well as this past weekend in the 5000 meter run at the Payton Jordan Invitational held at Stanford University. German defeated Chris at both the US Jr. National Cross Country Championships in Baltimore and in the IAAF Jr. World Cross Country Championships in Amman, Jordan this past winter.18:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)TGmaverick —Preceding unsigned comment added by TGmaverick (talk • contribs) — TGmaverick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I really hope that Derrick doesn't lose this page. He is among the best young athletes in the up and coming American distance running team. With his 13:29 5k he has established himself as one of the best junior amateur athletes in the world. I can't see why a kid who has now 3 NCAA All-American certificates already and has competed in the IAAF World XC championships cannot have a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniacmiler (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC) — Maniacmiler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I can't help but think about the points about how this deletion would have an effect on American track and field. That is the hair string we as a sport are hanging on now. The sport is making a come back, a deal with NBC for more coverage was just signed and that will help expose the sport. However, Derrick is a BIG part of the return of the sport of track and field to the mainstream. There is no reason he should be deleted. He is a VERY accomplished runner. And the wiki notable athletes standards are very stuffy, and should be flexible, just as this website is very flexible. Hell my professors still don't consider it a viable source. Instead of fighting against runner's like this, why not fight for this site's credibility. That's just me, I still site it and I stand firm that Chris Derrick needs a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniacmiler (talk • contribs) 04:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry but if Derrick's article is eliminated so should hasay's. Hasay ran a 4:14.5, when the best women in the world consistently run 20 seconds faster. For a 5k the equivalent would be running 1:10 faster than a 13:29, which is 12:19 a world record by a large margin. So in considering Hasay's time to the best in the world vs. Derricks, there is no comparison Derricks is better (in comparison to the best not 100 deep). One could argue that the women's field isn't as deep, but Hasay had an article well before she ran anything noteworthy ie. when she was running 10:00 3200s and 4:40 1600s. I really hope this suggestion for deletion was written by someone with no knowledge of track and field, otherwise i feel sorry for that person. User:MATThematical —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep:I want to note that in what are deemed to be the most "manly" sports, (like football and basketball) there are so many pages dedicated to athletes that never accomplished anything on the elite level. And when I say elite level I mean top 500 or so players in the USA at that time in there event. There is no greater example of this than football, where countless good NCAA players who never even made the pros have pages. take Tay Brown for example. Wiki needs to revise its notable athlete code. Note that not all sports are the same, its not fair to consider every professional player eligible in football and basketball and then not say nationally ranked runners are not notable. Highest level needs to be redefined as a national term. Are you saying that at any one given time only 3 or so runners are eligible per event in the US when there are countless linebackers that are eligible. This hardly seems equitable. Deleting this page means we need to definitely delete every NCAA football athlete page, and also probably some of the second string pros as well, first string pros that have mediocre careers will also be nominated for deletion, and then we can have the same discussion. If you want to delete this page I have no problem searching for the above pages and nominating them. But I think changing the definition of notable is a more community oriented solution, as opposed to a hostile one. Deleting this page would be against the spirit of the wiki. People are not voicing outrage at this pages deletion because they were told to by some site, they were simply made aware of the situation and told to do what they felt was right, no matter what that may be. Deleting this page would be such a slap in the face to the track and field community. MATThematical (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I move that this discussion be ended. He clearly meets some of the standards in WP:ATHLETE section (as described by several posters, NOTE he is in the top 25 in the world regardless of age this year, edit: if this was not understood this parenthetical statement was meant to show this time per say is not especially notable on its own without the jr. qualification, not a statement of how notable the time is), even if it is somewhat in the grey area. Personally I think its kind of rude of you to call for deletion of a page just because when you searched for "chris derrick" you got a track and field athlete and not the author you were looking for Christopher_Derrick. Next time you come accross something like this the best response would be to make a Disambiguation page, so others do not have the same frustration you experienced. Im sorry if this came off as rude, but I was deeply offended by this motion. The wiki is all about having obscure pages that meet a "vague" set of standards, which should constantly be eddited to reflect the communities opinions on noteworthiness. MATThematical (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not meet the (already very lax) standards of WP:ATHLETE. Note also that apart from some listings on sports sites, there is only an in-passing mention in USA Today. So this certainly misses the more general standards of WP:N. --Crusio (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep American junior record is a somewhat big deal, as is winning Nike Team Nationals and 2nd in Foot Locker Nationals. Most of his achievements are qualified in some way (best time in a all-high-school meet, junior record, etc.), but still are a weak claim of notability. For what it's worth, I despise WP:ATHLETE and I recognize that (as Crusio points out) this article seems to be even below its bar, but track & field is different than a lot of the sports that WP:ATHLETE was [probably] made to handle, and WP:ATHLETE's standard is a bit arbitrary...for example, people like Chris Solinsky and Galen Rupp were, IMO, notable and well-known long before Solinsky went pro and Rupp competed in the Olympics. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So his accomplishments are "a somewhat big deal". Accomplishment is not notability. If there are no sources, there is no notability. Misses WP:BIO, that's the main point, whatever accomplishments there are is not for us to judge and is immaterial to this discussion.... --Crusio (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, no it is not. Crusio makes a good point that all the links are only some sports sites. For some reason, all of these people from the track forum are coming here and changing things (for example the WP: Athlete requirements were changed to "accommodate" this guy)... basically the same people just coming here (and basically biased sources). It should be deleted for now... B0bby flay (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response I was not referred here by a track website, all you have to do is look at my contributions and you can see that i contribute to the wiki regularly in various mathematics, running, sports history, and ecology, and entomology related articles. Like Jason pointed out, I simply noticed how ridiculous the wp:athlete page was through this site. Additionally if you read the discussion page on notable athlete I provide a reason that is completely independent of this page. Also note that I never referred to the new definition on this page, as it really doesn't benefit Chris derrick since his time is only 24th in the world and barely misses the Olympic A standard. My argument is that he matches the bio criteria and potentially the old wp:athlete criteria that mentions competition in a world championship (of which I believe world jr championship counts). Its funny that I am being accused of running a muck on wiki by someone who doesn't even have a user page, and whose only comment on their talk page is by someone accusing them of vandalism. The only statements you claim in your post is factual innacuracies (newspapers and magazines are not considered any more biased than other secondary news sources), and unsupported accusations (accusing me of editing wp:athlete to support the derrick page, and accusing me of being referred here by a track website), hence unlike the other people arguing for deletion (who i disagree with, but respect their opinion) your post is of no value.MATThematical (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I missing something here? Both B0bby flag and MATThematical are only occasional contributors to WP and some of this jelling concerns allegations or denials of allegations ("I was not referred here by a track website") that don't seem to be present on this page. Is there perhaps another discussion going on on another page or off-wiki? Please remain focussed on the present discussion and dont forget WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --Crusio (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment Are USA Today and the San Francisco Chronicle "sports sites"? I guess he was mentioned in the "sports section" of these publications, but should we consider notable politicians non-notable because they were mentioned in the politics section of the New York Times and not on the front page? Where in WP:Bio does it say that secondary sources may not not be publications within a specific topic. I guess we should not include people mentioned in the New England Journal Medicine because that is a medical site/journal or Nature because that is a science site/journal. Stop making up rules as you go along. On another note, If you look at the WP:Athlete discussion you will see that the edit you mention was designed to make the requirement more equal across a wide array of sports, not to accommodate a particular athlete. The person who edited it may have noticed the idiocy of WP:Athlete after posting on this thread, but that does not mean he/she did it just to include Chris Derrick, especially considering Chris Derrick meets the criteria WP:Bio, which trumps WP:Athlete.Jasonbholden (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not say that USA Today is a "sports site", nor did I say that sports sites cannot be reliable sources. I said that mere listings on sports sites and in-passing mention in USA Today do not, IMHO, mean that Derrick has been the subject of in-depth coverage in these sources. --Crusio (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To use the word biased in this context is a gross misrepresentation of the word. Knowledge and competency do not equal bias, otherwise, anyone could make that claim. For that matter a case could be made likewise for those who are against this article. I would, however, argue that those who are a part of the track community are more qualified to judge the qualitative significance of a performer or performance of a track athlete than those who are unfamiliar with the sport. Evenmore, it is rather patronizing to listen to baseless arguments from those who do not know the sport, the culture, or the history.

Furthermore, who disputes the fact that Track and Field isn't even on the radar of mainstream media's coverage of the sport. There are a lot of track meets between the Olympics. Therefore, it is a weak argument to base notability off of the mainstream media's coverage. If you want to know if it is notable or not check with the media that actually covers the sport and knows the sport. Additionally, to argue that records with qualifiers like AJR dilutes the significance, only demonstrates a double standard and lack of understanding of the sport. These performances, that many on here have disrespected, are considered to be hallowed standards within the American distance running community. I am sure that any reasonable person would be quite offended, if outsiders who know very little about their area of "expertise," barged in and made comments that many in their field would find to be uninformed and ignorant.

Lastly, I think one of the most underappreciated and overlooked aspects of this debate is the context. Chris' American Junior Record establishes some context and a standard with which to gauge/judge his notability. I argue that within the distance runnning community the American Junior Record has significant importance to the landscape of distance running in this country and for that matter the sport as a whole. Let me illustrate my point further. Roger Bannister is a legend in the sport of Track & Field because he was the first man to break the four minute mile (context). This context establishes the significance of Roger Bannister's performance in view of the history of the progression of the mile at that time. However, Roger's personal best in the mile today would not be nearly as notable because there are tons of runners currently (and since then) that can break the four minute barrier. Should his significance be diluted, because the quality of his performance has been somewhat diluted in the past 50 years? I don't think so. Likewise, Chris' AJR, establishes some context that separates him from all other runners in this country, in this event, to this point in time. Chris Derrick will be forever a part of the progressive fabric of the American junior record in the 5K. That is notable! I believe that Chris Derrick is a notable athlete, not just because of his records, but also because the distance running community collectively and overwhelmingly recogonizes him as a notable and significant contributor to the history of their sport! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedplay2 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepChris Derrick meets the notability requirements of any biography (A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]). There is no mention that these sources cannot be sport sites/magazines or sports sections of regional and national publications. They just need to be "reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject". For those people who think he is not notable, please explain how USA Today (largest newspaper in the US), the San Francisco Chronicle(the 12th largest newspaper in US), Fox Sports News and Runner's World do not fit this criteria. He was also mentioned several times over the course of multiple years on Fox Sports News. All of these sources are either prominent, internationally distributed running publications or national and regional general publications. Whether Chris Derrick's accomplishments fit WP:Athlete is irrelevant, as this criteria is not exclusionary, but rather a loop hole to make it easier to include articles on non-notable athletes in popularized American pro/amateur sports (football, basketball, baseball, etc) and does not make an athlete notable or not. Chris Derrick's accomplishments as the American Junior Record holder and the possessor of the 25th fastest time in the world to date only adds to his credibility. Yes, I understand that the 25th fastest time in the world so far is misleading because it is early in the season, but how many US runners (of any age) have ran that time in the past year or two. I bet it is far less than the number of non-notable quarterbacks, defensive lineman, or running backs with wiki pages.Jasonbholden (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I am not a die-hard wikipedian, I do spend some time on wikipedia, and I have made some contributions. I am, yes, also a distance runner, as should be evident from the fact that several of my contributions are to running-related pages. That said, I hope you will take it as "expertise," rather than "bias," when I say that I think that the Derrick article should be kept. The strongest argument, to me, is MATThematical's point that plenty of NCAA basketball and football players who are not among the top 150 practitioners of their sport within the United States or top 300 in the World still have wikipedia pages. Notability is a slippery phenomenon, of course. More people do know about the 300th-best NCAA basketball player than one of the NCAA's best distance runners, simply because basketball is a better-known and more followed sport. I admit that I sometimes have little sympathy for gamers who want separate articles for all the weapons and devices in Halo 3, but I think that with athletes we run into a trickier scenario. Certainly, Derrick is much more notable within his sport than many (perhaps the majority) of athletes on wikipedia, but it is true that his sport is itself less well-known. This raises an important question: should we have different notability-within-their-sport standards for athletes in different sports, depending upon the notability of the sport? I favor having the same notability-within-their-sport standards for all sports, regardless of how notable the sport is, because an encyclopedia is about the preservation of history and knowledge, not simply a reflection of majority interests. If it were about majority interests, we'd have more articles on Halo 3 and fewer on theoretical physics.Squelchtoad (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Although I certainly agree with your comments on weapons/basketballers/etc. I should point out that the existence of this stuff does not justify keeping other stuff (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, less politely also know as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). --Crusio (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: This is true, but it doesn't refute the strongest part of the argument. That is in order to provide justification for deleting the page, one needs to have a logical explanation why coverage over a period of more than two years in regional newspapers (the one that has had multiple articles is 12th ranked nationally, he is in passing mentioned in the number 1 ranked nationally newspaper), national sports broadcast interviews, and publications in the most well known sports specific magazines (i.e. runners world) and sports specific websites (International Association of Athletics Federations) does not qualify under unbiased reputable secondary sources. In addition no one has provided a reason why all American does not qualify under the awards section. In order for this page to be deleted all of these points must be refuted.MATThematical (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I didn't intend to make an other stuff exists argument per se. My argument, as I saw it, ran as follows: 1) Let's assume that some of those basketball players actually deserve to be included in wikipedia. 2) A question then arises: what is it that makes them fair game for an article? Does it depends more heavily upon (A) their notability within their sport or (B) how well-known they are to the general public? If they deserve to be included more because of (A), their notability within the sport, then there almost certainly a good case for Derrick, since he is quite notable within his sport. If they deserve to be included more because of (B), how well-known they are generally, then perhaps there isn't a good case for Derrick, since he is not particularly well-known to the general public. I then argued (3) that the criteria ought to be more heavily weighted toward (A) because otherwise we run into the problem of having lots of cruft articles on subjects that are sufficiently popular (e.g. basketball, halo). I do realize that this argument has its limits; I think it makes sense to have fewer articles on curlers than on basketball players. That said, athletics is actually a fairly a popular sport (much more so than curling, though not as popular as basketball), and Derrick is notable within it. This still may not be a valid argument; I do not know how fluid or static wikipedia deletion criteria are, or whether there exist competing philosophies, etc. Others can feel free to enlighten me on that point.Squelchtoad (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still have the uncomfortable feeling that several participants to this discussion use the "normal English dictionary definition" of notability, not the Wikipedia version. Accomplishment, being known, etc. do not equal notability in the WP sense. For that, we need non-trivial coverage in independent, verifiable, and reliable sources. --Crusio (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is the confusion at all, as many of the sources mentioned in this argument fit into the criteria on independent, verifiable, and reliable sources (if not most of them). I think there is potential confusion on what is deemed as "significant coverage", certainly a sentence is not significant coverage, but what about a small paragraph or minute long interview, which all apply in this case. This is probably where the uncomfortable feeling is, because the page you mention specifically includes major newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle. I really don't think anyone questions how reliable, independent, or verifiable fox news, and major newspapers are in this case. The question is whether a small article counts as in depth coverage. But remember that in depth coverage is not required by a particular source Note: from the WP:BIO page "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability." So the question is how many sources and how substantial. This is what makes this deletion such a tough call. Everyone agrees that Chris Derrick is well known to the running/track and field community and also anyone who follows track and field (lets say to the point of someone who watches the national championships every year). The criteria can't be general public, or only superstars who have reached celebrity status would make the cut. But i agree that it can't be only the stat junkies who intensely follow every aspect of the sport either. There has to be some sort of fine line drawn in between the two extremes.MATThematical (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Think about this all you IP's (who will most likely be ignored by the closing admin) he got 15th in the world once. Not first, not second, fifteenth. By pure definition, he did not attain the highest level of amateur sports, and this also falls under WP:1E--Unionhawk Talk 17:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry, I'm getting very confused here. WHAT significant coverage? Let me go through the 7 references that the article currently lists. Reference 1: mentions Derrick in passing. #2: just a listing of results. #3: Yes, it's USA Today. No, the article is not about Derrick and it only mentions him briefly. #4: the only substantial article on Derrick. I am not sure in how far this is a notable source. #5: a mere listing. #6: A comment posted by someone linking to a YouTube video. #7: a bare listing. --Crusio (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I was under the impression that notability was determined by a person's coverage, not how well referenced his/her wiki article is. I have added a few references to the article, but this by no means represents the volume or quality of coverage on Chris Derrick.Jasonbholden (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • New #4 a "biography", consisting of a simple list of times etc. #9: Yes, it's the SF Chronicle. But only 7 sentences about Derrick in a very short article on two different persons. #9: A real article, but on a blog. Not a RS|reliable source. --Crusio (talk) 21:22, 11 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Derrick&oldid=1074639624"