Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Gore (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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gore

This article was already nominated for deletion before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Gore, though as the original creator I was never nominated and thus didn't get a vote. I am of the belief I should never have created this article, as Gore clearly fails to pass WP:ATHLETE. Gore was a non-notable college player and signed with the Miami Dolphins as an undrafted free agent. He was cut the first day of camp for being out of shape and, according to a guy I know who was also on the team, Gore has since retired. This seem to be true, as Gore has yet to sign anywhere else (NFL, CFL, AFL, af2, etc.). Gore isn't notable and never will be. His page will never be more than it is now, and he current isn't notable enough to be here. ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I believe the article should be retained as the subject does hold notability. Puca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep He was signed, and there appear to be enough sources. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I re-created the article. I decided to be bold after I saw that the original nomination had only two !votes and no exposure to the project that covers the field. Recently, two far less notable athletes (Gatena and Miller) were deleted after lengthy debate, one of which took three nominations before finally being deleted.

Here's my rationale for re-creation: According to WP:ATH, "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." For American football, this highest amateur level is Division I FBS. Not only did Dan Gore play for a Division I FBS team, Boise State, but he was a starter. The two previously mentioned deletions were both walk-ons, and that was the rationale for which they were deleted.

Additionally, I think Gore meets WP:N for coverage in the reliable sources that I added to the article when I recreated it. I think these are the three most important ones for establishing this in accordance with WP:N:

The New York Times considered Gore a "Key Loss" for Boise State when he graduated.
The Idaho Statesman ran an article about an opponent, who talked specifically about how he would match up against Gore.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran an article about the importance of the offensive line to Boise State, which includes addressing Gore's role in it.

The article is currently very short right now, as that is the way it was when originally deleted, minus the "External links" section. It could be easily be expanded to a couple paragraphs with the information available there, however. Notwithstanding, potential length of an article (or lack) is not a reason itself for deletion. Open a paper encyclopedia and one will find many, many, many articles of only a few sentences. Strikehold (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was deleted on March 9th. I believe Gore fails WP:Athlete as he has not played in the professional game. Amateur level surely refers only to those sports that do not have a professional game. Notability seems very limited. Parslad (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, no, it does not "surely" refer only to sports without a professional level. There is absolutely no wording to that effect in WP:ATH. Aside from that, he is notable due to the independent third-party coverage in the reliable sources referenced above. Strikehold (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK true enough, I think it's a fair inference however. There is a professional league, and he hasn't played in it though. As to notability, the New York Times' article lists Gore, but does not discuss him in any way. Otherwise, minor mentions of local interest only. Parslad (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for now. He still could have a professional career ahead of him. I would not argue if the article was deleted, however. Ndenison ^talk 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article fails WP:ATHLETE. Didn't even play one game in the pro's. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 21:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But Gore potentially having a professional career in front of him is irrelevant per WP:CRYSTAL. Gore was cut on the first day of training camp for failing a conditioning test and, according to his teammate at the time Mike Byrne, he decided to call it quits after that. While Byrne's comment to me obviously cannot be a source for the encyclopedia, it seems to be true given that Gore has yet to sign with any professional league at any level since last August. Gore's "career" is likely done and as it stands he has no notability.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Chris said, even though Byrne's comment isn't encyclopedic, Gore has yet to sign with anyone else. And just based on the fact he was a member of team like Byrne was, he should have been able to catch on somewhere like Canada (like Byrne), AFL, or some other small league who wants NFL type talent. Delete per WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 ^T/C 23:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 23:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 23:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Although there are quite a few external links, they all have to do with college football, which is not enough for notability. 129.105.104.246 (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should point out that three of these delete votes are based on a misinterpretation of, or at least very liberal extrapolation of, WP:ATH, which states that athletes at the highest amateur level are notable. This is NCAA Division I FBS for American football, which is more notable than most other nation's highest-level professional sports due to its popularity, common knowledge, economics, marketing, and media coverage. WP:ATH does not have any wording that indicates that highest-level amateur sports are only notable in the absence of a professional level. Additionally, WP:ATH does not trump WP:N, so the external links, whether referencing college football or not, are enough to indicate notability. Strikehold (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Although if you interpret WP:ATH like that, considering how many teams there are, and how many players there are on each of those teams, that's a lot of "notable" people. However, if you pick a random person on a NCAA Division I FBS team, chances are the only sources you'll find are websites simply listing that they're on the team.

Look at the sources. 1- He was part of a diving competition between teammates. 2- He's on Special Teams. 3- He blocked an extra point. 4- He's on the team. 5- He's starting on the team. 6- He's on the team. 7- He's no longer on the team.

I'd summarize that as not notable. 75.31.250.206 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it's a lot of people? It's not a paper encyclopedia. It's one thing to say that he isn't notable from those sources under WP:N. But you cited WP:ATH as the reason why it should be deleted. That is not possible, as WP:ATH is an additional criterion. That is, you can become notable under WP:ATH, but you cannot be non-notable because of it. Strikehold (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not sure stating that other people's opinions are based on 'misinterpretations' is very helpful. Also, you seem to be suggesting that an American sport is inherently more notable than sports in other countries? Is that something we really want to get into? Going down that road, then globally football's (soccer's) popularity is such that American football is of very little significance!! In this recent discussion on a footballer (soccer player) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Coleman in deleting the article, the closing admin stated 'WP:ATHLETE does clearly state that a subject must play at the highest professional level of a sport to be considered notable'. This for a sportsman with a professional contract at one of the world's larger football clubs (Everton) who had previously played at the highest level of football in Ireland AND had international caps at under 21 level. Still not enough to pass WP:Athlete. Dan Gore doesn't even come close! which is why this article was deleted originally. Parslad (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is one individual's interpretation, which, as I said, in my opinion, is a very liberal one. Just because it was the opinion of an administrator does not lend it any more value than anyone else's. Without knowing the subject you speak of firsthand, it sounds as though it was deleted wrongly. As for comparing the notability of one of the most popular and lucrative sports in the third largest country in the world with those of others, I would be glad to address dissenting opinions. Please note though that I did not say all sports, and I certainly didn't say it made it any better. Strikehold (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know you didn't say all sports, or better, which is why I said 'an American sport' and 'inherently more notable'. The deletion debate on Seamus Coleman which I quoted from above seems to be typical of the debates on sportspeople which I have been following recently. I agree with you that the closing admin's interpretation on that debate is just one opinion, but perhaps you can agree with me that calling my (and many others') reading of WP:ATH a 'misinterpretation' is unhelpful and a little insulting? Parslad (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I apologize if it came across as condescending. I should have explicitly said that it is my own opinion that that view is a misinterpretation of the guideline. But I would disagree that to say as much is unhelpful, because doing so demonstrates that it is not an uncontested or factual view as to letter or meaning of WP:ATH. Strikehold (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even close to meeting wither WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. No reliable sources giving him notability, and never played professionally.--2008Olympian^chitchat 19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those of you saying keep, ask yourself this. In 10, 20, 50 years, when this article is identical to how it is now, will it be worth being here? Will Gore truly ever be notable? What has he does to gain such long-lasting notability? Playing college football, even DI-FBS ball, isn't notable because not all the players do anything while playing and more never make it to the pros.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the article will look like in the future is irrelevant per WP:CRYSTAL. Ndenison ^talk 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's irrelevant now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This guy showed up for camp so out of shape they cut him immediately, flushing a multimillion dollar career down the toilet for sheer stupidity. This article should be deleted for sure, but an article should be written discussing all the people like Dan Gore who blew incredible carers in this bizarre way. 69.39.49.27 (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I don't think Gore has much of a shot at the pro level to begin with. Most undrafted rookies are just camp bodies who will never have an NFL career.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:Athlete.Nrswanson (talk) 10:31, 21 March 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.