Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Jessee

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. Neıl ☎ 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Jessee

Chris Jessee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The first AfD for this person ended in a no consensus. While this was a correct close considering the votes, there are still problems with this article. While Jessee has been covered in reliable sources, the problem is that all of the sources have covered Jessee for one thing and one thing only - making a penalty that his team that didn't even affect the outcome of the game it was a part of. Per WP:BLP1E:

When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

To this date, all coverage of Chris Jessee in reliable sources has been in the context of his Holiday Bowl screw-up, and nothing more. His screw-up wasn't even that important in the scope of college football - it was in a second-tier, non-BCS bowl game and the penalty itself didn't even affect the outcome of the game (the Texas Longhorns, who employed Jessee, won easily despite his mistake). Further, almost the entire content of this article is already in the main 2007 Holiday Bowl article - this article has nothing new to add about who Jessee is or what else he's done. Per this site's policy on biographies of living persons and the fact that this site is not a news source, this article should be deleted and/or redirected to the main 2007 Holiday Bowl article, since Jessee has done nothing of significance outside of that event. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - this nomination is out of order. The article just survived an AfD less than a month ago. That AfD closed with a no consenus in large part because the early votes were in favor of deletion. Once the stub was turned into a better article, the trend changed towards keep. The article shows multiple reliable sources, far more than are required by the notability guideline. Force10 (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The BLP issues with this article still haven't been addressed. Again, just because he got media coverage for a single incident does not make him suitable for an encyclopedic article. Almost all of the sources are about the action he did, not the person himself. The entire article is redundant to what is already in 2007 Holiday Bowl and separate article about him is unnecessary. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And saying that article's improvement changed the votes to "keep" are misleading. Only you voted for "keep" based on the improvement of the article (and blew off any and all BLP concerns); the other keep votes after User:Paulmcdonald began improving the article were (discounting anonymous trolls) were an admin who wasn't sure about either keeping or redirecting and a user who voted keep on the same reasoning as someone who had voted to delete the article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You are just forum shopping. You tried to delete it and that failed. You proposed a merger and haven't even gotten consensus for that. Now, you are trying again with the deletion. This nomination is improper and should be rejected Prima facie. Force10 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable coatrack. Realistically, the article is about an unusual football down. Interesting as it was, the down doesn't reach the level of The Hail Mary (American football game). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burzmali (talk • contribs) 15:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: We have plenty of articles that are not about the very best or most outlandish or the most famous. We have room for both Al Gore and Levi P. Morton. We have room for both Houston, Texas and Alpine, Texas. Just becuase this person is not as famous as some others does not mean that his article should be deleted. The 15 independent sources are more than enough to establish notability under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Force10 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

He may meet WP:N but as a living person the article also has to follow WP:BLP and it doesn't. And right now, there are no sources that can fix that. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for my reasons at the first AfD...although I will say that the first AfD probably could have been overturned at DRV. There was clearly a consensus for a delete/redirect. --Smashville^BONK! 21:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: You mistakenly equate "delete" with "redirect/merge". The later is not a deletion. Mergers and deletions can be done or undone at any time and do not have to come to AfD. Therefore, a "merge" comment is more similr to a "keep" comment than a "delete" comment. Force10 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete. If ever there was a case for WP:BLP1E, this is it. Subject is notable only for one very minor incident. This deserves one or two sentences in the Holiday Bowl article, if that. --MCB (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.