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. I must admit that my sympathies are with the "delete" !votes here, as I see nothing really encyclopedic in the current article. However, at this point there is essentially no consensus, leaning to "keep". Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dodge

Mark Dodge (edit | 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 guy falls far short of notability for either military or sportspeople. Mostly the article is built around interviews with him, which generally fail as reliable sources. This is the type of thing that gets one-time coverage as a feel good human interest story, but lacks any permanent, encyclopedic value.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This individual has received in-depth coverage in multiple major news sources, more than sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG ("received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") and WP:NCOLLATH ("been the subject of non-trivial media coverage"). Examples include (1) this feature story from ESPN.com, a major national media outlet (2) this feature story from USA Today, another national media outlet, (3) this nationally televised feature story on Dodge from College Game Day, (4) this feature story from the Houston Chronicle, the largest daily newspaper in Texas, (5) this syndicated feature story from the Associated Press, (6) "Dodge receives Tillman Patriot award, other football honors, Reno Gazette-Journal, Dec 6, 2007, (7) this feature on UWire, and (8) this from the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Cbl62 (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Cbl62's analysis above there is significant coverage in multiple, indepedent, reliable sources more than sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. This coverage is about as solid as it gets; there are several feature articles in major national and regional media outlets. The specific notability guidelines of WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON do not come into play. Given the quality of the sources available, the subject deserves a better encyclopedia article than the hagiographic bio that now exists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really can see absolutely no reason why this individual should be considered notable. The media coverage comprises human interest stories only. That doesn't make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage is essentially trivial, and he has only gained attention because of his involvement in 9/11. Subject has not actually done anything that is noteworthy.TheLongTone (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Apparently, we have different definitions of what constitutes "trivial." Which of these feature articles in a major publication do you deem to be "trivial"?
  • feature story - Houston Chronicle, primary newspaper serving the fourth largest city in the United States;
  • feature story - ESPN.com, website of the largest TV sports network in the United States, which dominates coverage of college and professional sports;
  • feature story - USA Today, a national newspaper with the largest print circulation of any newspaper in the United States; or
  • feature story - Associated Press, the largest news wire service in the United States, and one of the two largest English-language wire services in the world (the other being Reuters).
Did you read the linked articles? Are you familiar with these sources? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, these are all just human interest stories. He is a former college football player who happens to have previously served in the army and been at the Pentagon when it was attacked. The papers have picked up on this and decided to write stories about him. It doesn't matter how significant those papers or other media outlets are. Yes, he may have an interesting story to tell, as many military veterans do, but this does not make him notable in Wikipedia terms. He is notable neither as a sportsman (since he has not played professionally) nor as a military veteran (since he was not a senior officer and has not been awarded any significant decorations). He's just a bloke who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and then played a sport for his university. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Dodge was a two-year starting linebacker on one of the major NCAA Division I college football teams. Dodge received, over a period of five or more years, repeated significant coverage, including feature articles, in major national and regional publications and media outlets. That more than satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I urge you to review the linked GNG guidelines; there is no requirement that anyone have done "something noteworthy" in order to be "notable." Wikipedia's concept of notability is based on the depth and quality of coverage of the subject, not on any particular accomplishment or noteworthiness of the subject. If necessary, I am more than willing to post the GNG guidelines on this AfD page for ease of reference. You are arguing from a viewpoint that is not supported by the applicable Wikipedia guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Playing sport at university level is not sufficient for notability. This is long established. As to the GNG, yes we all know what they say. However, whether Dodge qualifies for an article under GNG would depend on your definition of "significant coverage". "A lot" does not necessarily equate to "significant". Local politicians, for instance, get a lot of media coverage, but it is routine coverage. It is not generally considered sufficient for notability on Wikipedia (and this has been held to be the case many times in AfDs). Dodge's coverage is merely human interest coverage. It is because he has an interesting story. It does not, however, equate to significant coverage, which would make him notable in our terms. It could, in fact, be said to come under WP:ONEEVENT, since it is primarily about his involvement in the Pentagon attack. If he had not gone on to play college football with a well-known team then his involvement would have been considered no more notable than the involvement of anyone else who was peripherally involved in the incident. It goes like this: lots of people like American football, the Pentagon attack was a notable incident and people are naturally interested in that too, an American football player (although one not notable enough for an article for his involvement in the sport) was involved in the attack, so the media have written articles about him because they know that it's a good human interest story because it combines two of America's big interests. But that fact still doesn't make him notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dirtlawyer, what we have here is the result of a specific combination of several important US-related topics: 9/11, football and military service. It's essentially a chance conflation of several very "all-American" ideals focused on one individual. If all that was needed was mere media coverage, we wouldn't have notability guidelines in specific fields. Setting those aside in this case feels like you're missing the "presumed"-part of WP:GNG.
Peter Isotalo 00:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, you're missing the part where the specific notability guidelines impart nothing more than a presumption of notability, too. It is well established that the specific notability guidelines are not exclusive, but are simply rules of thumb that permit a quicker analysis while avoiding a full-fledged GNG analysis. For any subject that passes a full-blown GNG analysis, the specific guidelines are moot. It's a dirty little secret that many subjects that are presumed notable under the specific guidelines could never pass GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Specific guidelines give us more guidance in cases like this than the purely procedural general notability guidelines. General notability should be the start of the discussion, not the end of it. What you're arguing for in my view that is coverage, regardless of its nature, confers automatic notability. I can see no "full-blown" analysis. In my view, this isn't any different from routine coverage of local politicians mentioned by Necrothesp. When a minimum of critical analysis is applied to this, this topic fails in every single aspect, especially when WP:ONEEVENT (9/11) is taken into consideration.
Peter Isotalo 09:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cbl62 and Dirtlawyer1's excellent arguments and research. As noted, WP:GNG trumps all other WikiProject-specific notability guidelines. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Significant coverage means the coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Routine coverage that a local politician gets is mainly about something he is involved in, and the coverage does not address him directly and in detail. However, if a local politician has two or more detailed biographic articles in different reputable books, or non-local feature news stories, can we say these articles contain nothing but routine coverage? Certainly we can't. The same logic applies here.
After reading the long discussion above, I suspect each "notable" in Necrothesp's comment can be substituted with "famous", "important" or "successful". (For exapmle, "Playing sport only at university level is not a success.") But WP:GNG points out that determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.
I raised a question on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Additional criteria yesterday. (Actually before the debate began, what a coincidence!) And I'll !vote keep unless we reach a different consensus. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments above. Peter Isotalo 09:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per GNG. GNG doesn't care whether the coverage was motivated by human interest; it only asks if there are reliable independent sources that are specifically about the subject of the article. I can't see any way that GNG is not met here. I have some sympathy with the suggestion that WP:ONEEVENT applies, but in this case I don't see a better outcome by applying it -- typically ONEEVENT leads to embedding the information in the sources in the article about the event. Information about Mark Dodge doesn't belong in the 9/11 articles, but given the sources, we should put information about him somewhere. An article about him seems the most sensible choice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "[D]oesn't care whether the coverage was motivated by human interest". That's probably the best summary of this being not about bothering to evaluate encyclopedic value but applying a purely textualist analysis of guidelines. And, of course, ignoring that the cited guidelines were originally written to assist in the determination of encyclopedic value. The circle is complete. Peter Isotalo 12:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right that the guidelines were written to assist in the determination of encyclopaedic value, but I think they were also written to eliminate certain kinds of value judgements -- that certain kinds of topics or coverage were of less value than others. I think this is such a case, and it's not borderline: there are clearly plenty of sources about this person. As I say above, I'm sympathetic to the ONEEVENT argument, but if this discussion were to reach consensus that ONEEVENT applies, where do you feel that would leave us? Where would you then put the material in these sources -- in an article on People made notable only by 9/11? If there is somewhere better for this material to go than the current article, I'd be interested to hear about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Guidelines always boil down to value judgements, so I don't see how the value judgement of "coverage exists = notability" is in any way superior. And I don't see why you would ask me about where this "would leave us". Nothing in the article is actually notable to anything but Mark Dodge himself, not 9/11, the US Army or college football. If I don't consider him notable as a person, why should I view the content here as anything other than indiscriminate? If you believe this about more than the life story of Mark Dodge, you should explain exactly what that is. Because I don't see anything here beyond the "human interest"-argument. Peter Isotalo 13:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the disconnect here, I believe, is cultural. All three "delete" voters are from Europe, where college sports are not a major form of athletic competition. College football in the US is, in fact, a big time sport. Texas A&M, where Dodge played, is one of the elite programs, drawing an average of 87,125 fans to each game per this NCAA publication. The program also generates $94 million a year in revenue per this analysis. Most professional sports teams do not come close to these figures. This is not to say that every college football player warrants an article. They do not. But when a player at a big-time college football program like Texas A&M receives in-depth coverage in the mainstream media, as Dodge has, the well-established precedent is that he passes WP:GNG, just the same as any athlete. We ought not allow personal value judgments about particular sports alter that analysis. Dodge is an award-winning college football player at one of the top collegiate programs. See this CBS Sports (major national outlet) feature story about Dodge receiving the Tillman Patriot Award. If we substitute our own value judgment about an athlete's encyclopedic value, we undermine the objective standards that are at the core of WP:GNG and engender never-ending battles about which person, sport, etc. is truly encyclopedic. Given the level of coverage given to Mark Dodge, can anyone truly say with a straight face that he is less notable than a person who played one game in a professional soccer or baseball game and never had a feature story written about them? I don't think so. Likewise, and borrowing Peter's analytical benchmark, can anyone truly say with a straight face that the referenced one-game professional soccer/baseball player is more is any more notable as a person or to his sport than Dodge? Again, I don't think so. Dodge clearly passes WP:GNG, and the contrary value judgments of a handful of "delete" voters should not be allowed to override the extensive in-depth coverage and editorial judgments of the largest media outlets in the United States. Cbl62 (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to opt out of the Europe vs US-argument, please. I'm very well-versed in the importance of college sports and I am only applying WP:NCOLLATH to that part. The rest is just WP:ONEEVENT. I also took a very similar stand regarding Joachim Cronman, an unremarkable Swedish officer of the lower nobility. He achieved absolutely nothing that has been described outside of standard entries in Swedish nobility directories (similar to Almanach de Gotha). To me, the general argument that any coverage in (otherwise important) sources isn't a convincing argument for inclusion in a encyclopedia.
Peter Isotalo 15:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, my only reason for mentioning European-ness of the "delete" voters is that college sports in Europe are not significant and most Europeans I've talked to are quite surprised (even flummoxed) to find out what a big deal they are in the US. In any event, a college athlete may qualify through either WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH (need not satisfy both). Here, the in-depth and broad coverage of Dodge passes GNG even though some editors may think he's a trivial character. What's important, and the genius behind or GNG standard, is that we look at it objectively, and what is important is that editors of major media outlets have deemed him to be noteworthy; whether you or I find him noteworthy is not the correct benchmark. Also, WP:NCOLLATH expressly states: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." Here, the coverage of Dodge is plainly not routine. Cbl62 (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Other WP:ROUTINE coverage" seems like exactly what human interest stories are. But the most convincing argument in my mind is still that his notability argument stem entirely from the coverage itself rather than something applied to any relevant field. Peter Isotalo 16:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the outdent. Was getting a bit cramped. The coverage of Dodge is not routine. Routine sports coverage would be things like passing mentions in game coverage, inclusion in statistical listings, a very short blurb in a pre-season team profiles, maybe even a short story in the guy's smalltown home newspaper. The coverage of Dodges consists of feature stories that are written about him -- the antithesis of routine coverage. As for your last point, the coverage doesn't just arise from a vacuum and report about nothing. The coverage is principally about two things (1) his role in historic events involving 9/11, and (2) his play for one of the elite football programs in the US. Subjectively, you consider his connection to these events to be trivial, but, again, what matters here is that the editors of major media outlets deemed his role in these events to be sufficiently meaningful and notable that they exercised their editorial judgment in publishing multiple, in-depth feature stories about him. Cbl62 (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)/FAQ.(The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To me "gameday features" and the likes are obvious types of "other routine coverage" since it's unrelated to any actual football achievements. If this isn't routine, then what exactly is? We obviously agree that Dodge's athletic records don't meet minimal notability standards. This is also perfectly obvious if you read the coverage in USA Today, ESPN and the Houston Chronicle; all of it is really about 9/11 and military service. So in what way is Dodge notable in relation to 9/11? Are all military personnel who served at one of the crash sites considered notable enough for their own article? Or does this privilege extend only to those who have been college athletes?
Peter Isotalo 14:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We include topics with significiant coverage in reliable sources and exclude topics without them. We keep deleting local things such as roads, bus routes and shopping malls. Some of these might be rather important in a large city, or even a in state.(such as a shopping mall over 500K sqft) But without reliable sources we don't want to keep them. If some additional judgement should be exercised, should these local things be considered notable because they are "important" to a ceratin degree? No. In my own view, if we made additional judgement, WP:GNG would no longer be objective as it is today. And there is no need to start a discussion on GNG talk page/--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The argument from GNG doesn't require us to determine exactly what aspect of a topic makes it notable; it just asserts that if the editors of multiple reliable sources exercised their judgement and decided that Dodge was worth covering, then Dodge is notable in Wikipedia terms. I see your point about human interest and the lack of any fundamental inherent notability, but it is debates about "inherent notability" that GNG is, in my view, designed to bypass. I understand that you feel some additional judgement should be exercised, rather than a blind adherence to rules, but my reading of GNG differs from yours. I think this might be a good discussion for the GNG talk page, using this AfD as an example, rather than for this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That a highly specific guideline like WP:NCOLLATH is "bypassed" I could somewhat understand, but not that WP:BLP (WP:ONEEVENT is an important part of it) is seen as irrelevant. I'll see if there's interest regarding this at WP:N, though.[1] This AfD seems to be heading towards an obvious no-consensus-keep.
Peter Isotalo 14:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has suggested that "merely playing at a big name school" is enough to show notability. Having feature stories written and broadcast in major national media outlets, however, that is enough under any measure. Cbl62 (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails both WP:BLP1E and WP:NCOLLATH. He is, for all purposes, a first-hand eyewitness that ticked up higher in interest due to his military carrier and college career. The feature stores linked are basically are as best described human interest stories - he's local, giving his recollection of 9/11, and only because he started playing college football. If these two activities (witnessing 9/11, and playing college football) were done by different people, neither would be notable (per BLP1E and NCOLLATH, respectively), and the fact that it happened to be one person doesn't change that. It would be different if he had something of a remarkable college football carrier but opted not to continue forward with that, but that doesn't seem to be the case - he seemed to disappear otherwise. Note that this is specifically that we have had time since he gave up football to judge sources; if this was about a player just starting or still active in college, I would be more lenient to keeping the article to give time to develop. Here, unless something drastically new happens to him, he's just a witness/helper and a failed college player, and fails notability. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add: specifically BLP1E and NCOLLATH are two of the few notability guidelines that specifically overrule the GNG, specifically because people that fall into these categories may get a wide range of coverage but have no long-term notability. So while the GNG may be met, these two guidelines are stronger in their application here. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem -- Your comments misstate the facts and established policy and precedent on many levels. First, your assertion that "he's local" is a factual misstatement (unless you consider the United States to be "local"). The coverage is in national media sources of wide circulation. Second, it has never been held that NCOLLATH overrules GNG. To the contrary, it has always been held that a college athlete may qualify under either. Third, there is no BLP issue here. The article is well sourced. Fourth, the coverage is not limited to a single event separate from the individual. The sources cover Dodge's military career and also his participation in college sports which covered more than just a single game or event. Fifth, your characterization of Dodge as a "failed" college athlete is erroneous, as he won All-Big 12 honors in one of the elite conferences. Sixth, and in any event, he passes NCOLLATH in two respects (i) he has "been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage," and (ii) he received "national media attention as an individual." Cbl62 (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem: I am disappointed in your logic (or lack thereof) regarding WP:NCOLLATH. You, as much as anyone, knows that WP:NCOLLATH is not and never has been an exclusive test of notability for American college athletes. NCOLLATH is and always has been backstopped by WP:GNG, just like all of the the other specific guidelines of WP:NSPORTS. Feel free to argue BLP1E, but please let's not toss the baby out with the bathwater. Far more than half of the college athlete AfDs in which I have participated have been decided on the basis of GNG and not NCOLLATH. And we both know that GNG is the harder standard to satisfy. And given your long involvement and sophistication in notability policy and guidelines, I am pretty sure you know this already. As for your characterization of the subject as "a failed college player," well, to be charitable to you, that's simply nonsense. He was a two-year starter at one of the premier NCAA Division I college football programs in one of the two predominant college football conferences. And in case you've missed it, one of the things that makes the subject's story interesting is that he was also a student of non-traditional university age: he was 25 and 26 years old during his two Division I seasons, when he teammates and his opponents were all aged 18 to 23.
As for your assertion that "BLP1E and NCOLLATH are two of the few notability guidelines that specifically overrule the GNG, specifically because people that fall into these categories may get a wide range of coverage but have no long-term notability," well, I urge you to start reviewing every college athlete AfD for the last three years, because the overwhelming majority of them have been wrongly decided if you are correct that NCOLLATH trumps GNG. Your position effectively advocates overturning the established understanding and consensus regarding the relationship of NCOLLATH and GNG. If you really don't know this, then we have far bigger problems than either of us previously understood. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sports guidelines makes it clear that college athletes should only have articles if "the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage", and specifcally warns against local coverage (the Houston Chronicle at this point), allowing the GNG to be overridden (otherwise, we'd have articles on every high school and college athlete). I consider the reporting of this person in USA Today, ESPN and the like as part of ROUTINE - oh, here's a new player, let's discuss him. This was at the start of the career. He only caught the eye of the press because of being tied to 9/11 events. Again, separate out the two, neither aspect alone is notable, and so combining them does not make them notable either. Because he left sports, there's nothing more to this person, and thus he has no enduring notability. Ergo, deletion is proper. And to add that a key element of the GNG is enduring coverage, and the bulk of coverage being pulled from is a few months in 2006. Nothing of significance since. That screams even more of a second BLP1E issue - his signing to play on the Augies being highlighted by the press - as a problem. Just because we can document someone doesn't mean they necessarily have to have an article. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Your interpretation of NCOLLATH is erroneous. The mention of WP:ROUTINE is simply to clarify what constitutes routine coverage in the context of college sports. Post-game summaries are routine. Pre-game and post-game quotes from players are routine. Major feature articles carried in national newspapers such as USA Today are not "routine."
Furthermore, Houston, Texas is the fourth largest city in the United States, with a metropolitan area of more than 6 million people. Texas A&M University is not located in Houston, but in College Station, Texas. Saying that coverage in the Houston Chronicle is "local" is like suggesting coverage of Oxford in the London newspapers is "local." The hometown newspaper for Texas A&M is The Bryan-College Station Eagle, not the Houston Chronicle in a distinctly different city 100 miles away. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's close enough to be local - that is, while there is University of Houston that I'm sure the Houston Chronicle covers, it's also going to cover other local colleges (which, 100 mi in Texas, is nothing). But my point for deletion does not rest heavily on the local issue, but as a routine issue and even thinking about it more, implied inherited notability ("oh, here's a new athlete that was tied to 9/11, great human interest story!") He left sports and has done nothing since in the 6-7 years. No enduring notability, ergo, we should not be covering them. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dirtlawyer, Cb162, regarding WP:NCOLLATH: if you want to argue that someone is notable according to topic-specific guidelines, you have to apply logical consistency. Topic-specific criteria obviously refer to topic-specific achievements (sports). Otherwise you could just as easily claim that Dodge is also a notable soldier (according to WP:MILHIST), which is obviously not the case.
Peter Isotalo 17:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is logical consistency -- have you even read NCOLLATH? One of the topic-specific criteria, subpart (3), is a college athlete who has: "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." As discussed above, Dodge has received such national coverage. We're going in circles now. Also, as Dirtlawyer has noted, established policy and precedent confirm that passing WP:GNG is enough, and Dodge does that. Cbl62 (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason they're called "Human interest stories". Yes, he had several articles that were specifically about him, but over a very short period of time and specifically more on because he was 9/11. That's it - he's a good Samaritan for sure, but that's it. National news will do this all the time on slow news days, dedicating a short article or segment to a feel-good or humorous story that would put the person int the national spotlight for a brief moment. That's why BLP1E is the big player here - we don't include articles when the coverage is like that, and that's what this clearly is. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note the crucial qualification in the juxtaposition of "individual" and "notable team". That basically screams "coverage as a sportsperson". You're claiming it means simply "gained national media attention", which is a very selective reading.
Peter Isotalo 18:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Masem and Peter are proposing is a radical departure from existing precedent and consensus under which the sport projects have operated for as long as I have been involved (3+ years). This is no "tweak," fellas; it would dramatically change what subjects have stand-alone Wikipedia articles, and open hundreds if not thousands of existing articles to deletion. Cbl62 and I are only two of dozens of editors who will want to voice their opinions on point; neither of us has any authority to negotiate on behalf of the impacted content creators and affected Wikiprojects, many of whom had a say in the existing consensus interpretation of NCOLLATH and the other specific NSPORTS guidelines. This is not something that will be settled by four editors on an obscure talk page. A reinterpretation of the nature advocated by Peter and Masem will require a full-blown RfC, with community wide notice to all affected WikiProjects. This is not something that can be jammed through; existing precedent and consensus do not support you. I urge both of you to think this through; there is a lot more at stake than one article the two of you don't like. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also note, for the record, that there is no "human interest story" exception to the GNG requirement of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. You guys are way, way, way out on a limb by yourselves. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are trying to interpret actual notability guidelines, which is how consensus is supposed to be described. Disagreements might indicate that consensus isn't accurately described. Or that it might have changed. Who knows? If you have specific examples that you feel support the arguments for keeping this articles, please share those examples. Expressing general alarm over a specific article and throwing about WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't really help here. Peter Isotalo 18:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, Peter, I will be very specific: Please direct our attention to any of the applicable guidelines where the phrase "human interest story" is used. We'll start there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability covers the idea of human interest stories via the idea of looking for enduring coverage. There is always stories about a "person of the week" or the like that is meant to make the reader/viewer feel good , but that's it. It'll get wide coverage for a short bit of time and then disappear. That's exactly the case here. There's no enduring coverage (dismissing the college footplay play states as routine). --MASEM (t) 18:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, in answer to my question immediately above your answer, the phrase "human interest story" does not appear in any of the applicable guidelines. Your answer represents an evasion and a failure to answer that very simple and direct question. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • We've discussed this at some length, though. It's clearly a matter of interpretation of existing guidelines and not all that remarkable. The claims about thousands of articles deleted, multiple WikiProjects affected, community wide notices required, etc. are pretty remarkable statements, though. It's not something anyone can simply search for or look up. That's why examples would be appropriate. Peter Isotalo 18:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, Peter, we have. And you refuse to acknowledge that the phrase "human interest story" has no basis in the applicable guidelines. You're winging it, and it shows. Have you reviewed the Frequently Asked Questions from the top of the NSPORTS page yet? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the Frequently Asked Questions menu at the top of WP:NSPORTS:

"Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?

"A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist."

I think that's relatively clear. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the point that you're ignoring is that so-called national coverage is non-enduring, human interest stories that extend from BLP1E, and thus the GNG is not met either. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you're perfectly free to make the BLP1E argument, Masem. I won't even fight it if you can get a consensus to agree with you. But turning the accepted consensus interpretation of NCOLLATH inside out in order to delete a single article is foolish and will do nothing but create instability and aggravation for everyone who works with American college sports articles and everyone who works with the NSPORTS guidelines. BTW, I really wish you would acknowledge that there is no basis in the text of the applicable guidelines regarding your "human interest story" exception. You're winging it, and you need to drop back and view the Big Picture. As law professors like to say, "Bad facts make bad law," and you're trying to twist the rules in order to achieve a single desired outcome with precious little consideration of the larger consequences. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You want the big picture? This guy, who just happened to be at a famous event, and happened to play college-level sports for a few years and and then stepped out of the spotlight, is a nobody in the big picture. We shouldn't have an article about him per WP:NOT/WP:IINFO. As you are trying to argue keeping it under some attempt to wiggle policy/guidelines for it, I'm explaining the broad picture that people who's primary claim to fame is being featured in human interest stories (and only that) are not notable per GNG and per BLP1E. That's the big picture. Yes, our guidelines don't explicitly say that but look at the big picture, and you'll see why we don't need an article here. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have different Big Pictures. My primary concern is a stable interpretation of NCOLLATH, not a new one that throws into question the notability of hundreds of existing college athlete articles. Yours is the suitability of Mark Dodge for inclusion as a stand-alone article because you see it as an American conflation of 9/11, the U.S. military and college sports. You don't need to reinterpret or misinterpret NCOLLATH to make that argument. If you make a good enough GNG/BLP1E argument, you may even get me to agree with you. But if you want a different interpretation of NCOLLATH, you are three or four years too late, and should have been participating in the hundreds of AfDs that gave practical meaning to the words of NCOLLATH. Its meaning is well established, and in the absence of language that explicitly says NCOLLATH trumps GNG, you've already lost that argument by not participating in the many, many AfD discussions that rejected that interpretation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this out of the way, whether the NCOLLATH (or more specifically NSPORTS) trumps the GNG is not a factor here because I will admit that the 3 national papers aren't local or routine. But in a different case, NSPORTS does override the GNG when the only sources are local or routine (which the GNG is silent on otherwise). But that's not the discussion for this AFD.
As pointed out elsewhere, we have a person that has two separate things that might be tied to notability: the 9/11 activity, and being in college sports. The latter has been proven as a non-notable career (that seems to not be in question from the above). The 9/11 activity is simply BLP1E, being someone that just happened to be there, so that's non-notable. Together, two non-notable aspects would make for a non-notable person. The only reason there's an issue is that we have three national sources that happened to pick up on this feel-good human interest story. But if those same sources existed without this person playing in college (say, the same articles but written a week after 9/11) we'd still delete the article per BLP1E. The only reason his story was picked up appears to be a human interest, and once it was covered once, there was no further coverage, therefore no enduring coverage. So therefore the GNG is failed as well as BLP1E as well as the specific criteria of NCOLLATH. Just because there are three national sources does not make the person notable due to other reasons relating to how we cover persons. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beside remaining extremely skeptical to the idea that the purpose of WP:NCOLLATH is to "provide buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources", I'm with Masem. Arguing to keep this in this case goes against some very basic principles of notability. The arguments to keep come down to pettifogging with undue bias towards sports.
Peter Isotalo 22:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One good thing has come from this debate. I've learned a new word -- pettifogging. That said, the only pettifogging or bias on display here is an anti-sport bias. GNG is GNG whether a person is a member of a boy band, a local politician, or a business executive. Peter and Masem would have athletes be subjected to a more rigorous test, presumably because they view such endeavors as less worthy. Thankfully, that is not how GNG works. As for the one event bit, a review of the actual sources shows that the coverage extends to the fact that Dodge was an outstanding player (not a failed player as Masem tried to argue before) during his playing career, so much so that he won conference honors as a linebacker. As for Peter being "extremely skeptical to the idea that the purpose of WP:NCOLLATH," the language quoted comes directly from the policy. The bottom line is that Peter and Masem seek not to follow policy and guideline but to override it, because they subjectively view Dodge as unworthy and not encyclopedic. They are certainly entitled to their opinion, but the objective policies in place, if followed, require that this article be kept. Cbl62 (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying Kim Kardashian is not BLP1E either?—Bagumba (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting she only has one "asset" of note? Cbl62 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sports are already treated with more scrutiny due to the systematic bias in coverage they get. If you take off some of the controls (eg not allowing local/routine sourcing for athletes), we could have articles on every high school and college player in the United States with a bit of effort. NSPORTS was written specifically with such controls in mind, focusing more on professional athletes that have made it their career than people in passing. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's with all this belligerence and anti-sports nonsense? Did I not specify Joachim Cronman? Are we not discussing one of the most detailed and specific notability guidelines that we have? And what's with this Kardashian-and-"assets" spiel? This is getting unnecessarily ugly.
Peter Isotalo 23:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG with multiple sources of significant coverage from independent sources over an extended period starting in 2006. As late as 2008, The New York Times was still making reference to Dodge: "Strongside ‘backer Mark Dodge continued to build upon what was already a great story, earning second-team all-Big 12 honors while leading the team with 117 tackles (5.5 for loss)."[2] While that NYT coverage years later is trivial, the fact it was even still talked about is indicative that notability for Dodge is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Seems some deleters discount the coverage on the grounds that they don't WP:DONTLIKE that the media deals with human interest stories, or is gaining notability from being both a soldier and a football player, and not from one area solely. It's a close argument, but I'll err on the side of keep when in doubt.—Bagumba (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This subject obviously meets the GNG. That being the case, whether he meets NCOLLATH is entirely, completely, wholly irrelevant. The notion that NCOLLATH not only overrules the GNG but that articles that otherwise meet the GNG must fail if they don't satisfy NCOLLATH is the height of absurdity. By that token, there are many thousands of public figures who were undistinguished college athletes. Should the several United States Presidents who fit that category have their articles stricken because they don't satisfy the mighty NCOLLATH? Ridiculous. Ravenswing 00:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The core argument remains that Dodge fails WP:BLP1E. He should be treated like any other 9/11 rescuer or debris-clearer (who would obviously also fail WP:NCOLLATH). Peter Isotalo 07:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe this spans more than "one event" -- there are the events of 9/11, and then there are the events involved in handling and processing those events later over time. Apparently he's been called upon by experts to discuss those events of 2001 in 2006, 2007, and 2011. We're beyond the scope of WP:BLP1E. Passing WP:GNG is normally considered enough for notability, even if the subject may fail one or more other notability measures.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I take away from those that that's just asking for his eyewitness information and not so much for any other "expertise" that he might have offered. It is the equivalent of, say, a person having been charged with a crime where the event is notable but per BLP1E we don't create a separate article for the accused, instead keeping all the details of the trial to the event. As such here, the little that explains what he might have been doing more recently all is still tied to the original event, and BLP1E is still applicable. A way to consider it is if the national articles like the USA Today one were still published, but Dodge was not in college sports and just a person they went back to for 9/11 opinion, this would be a clear no-brainer for deletion per BLP1E. We add in a non-notable college football career that should not change that. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who are the experts you're referring to? Peter Isotalo 20:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Scope of coverage means WP:BLP1E does not apply in a meaningful way. - Dravecky (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far, we have nine keep votes (one of the keeps [by 180.172.239.231] is indented, not clearly marked, easy to miss) and five delete votes. Peter and Masem have, in their comments, made every imaginable argument for deletion. Masem, at least, now agrees that the coverage is sufficiently broad in nature (i.e., he no longer contends it's too "local") and is not "routine." Their argument now comes down to the "one event" point. As Dravecky notes, the coverage is too broad to allow BLP1E to be invoked to overrule GNG. The coverage is not, as Masem argues, limited to Dodge being an "eyewitness/helper" to 9/11. It covers his military career and also his successful career as a football player on one of the top tier teams. Masem sought to overcome this by arguing Dodge was a "failed" player, but this is simply untrue. He won conference honors and received coverage for that as well. Cbl62 (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2014 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Dodge
No tags for this post.