Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooper Manning

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 redirect to Archie Manning. --Coredesat 04:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cooper Manning

The subject of the article does not merit inclusion per WP:BIO in Wikipedia neither as a short-term college football player or as a relative of notable Mannings. As far as his own career, there is no evidence that any of the work in his field meets notablity guidelines, either. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Archie Manning where he's already covered. No need to merge. ~ trialsanderrors 01:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above, unfortunately a famous father and two famous brothers does not notability make --Steve 01:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would not object to a redirect. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. Jcam 02:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per above ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC) ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no notability. — ERcheck (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Per above, this is already covered in a section on another article. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE per nomJoshTyler 14:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Due to the specific nature of the Manning family. His 2 brothers are 2 of the most famous quarterbacks in the NFL today, as was their father in his day. This naturally leads to the question of what happened to the 3rd son. This has come up in my circles twice in the past month, so I looked it up today. I found the answer (a career-ending spinal disease), and therefore I don't think this article should be deleted. Under normal circumstances, being a relative of a notable person does not make one notable, but the special circumstances here warrant an exception. Axlrosen 15:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --164.107.92.120 16:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Archie Manning. NawlinWiki 16:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Archie Manning.--Kf4bdy talk contribs 16:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as noted above. For a subject with NO Independant notability, the mentions in other articles are sufficient. --Jayron32 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Cbrown1023 21:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep he should have his own page!! Audiobooks 21:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect' We have established on WP that just being related to someone famous does NOT make person famous as well. TJ Spyke 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. --Bill Clark 23:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • weak Redirect mmm, The problem with redirection is that you will need to search for the appropriate section. Keep is not good either since it fails WP:BIO for the moment. The lesser of two evils seems to be redirect to me. But I don't like that to be honest... -- lucasbfr talk 23:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He comes up a lot in Manning discussions, meets WP:BIO, and absolutely is worthy of having an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • BDJ, this is what BIO means when it says, "non-trivial coverage" - crz crztalk 17:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I don't consider that trivial at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak redirect per above. Those articles could be used as sources in the Archie Manning article.--Cúchullain t/c 00:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The definition of non-notability.--Yannismarou 10:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Notability is not inherited. To include him based on his having had a debilitating spinal disease would be speculation on what he could have become. Wiki is not a crystal-ball. Ohconfucius 12:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Usually in favor of Keep. In this case, there doesn't seem to be much meat to the article, though, so I'd like to see a little more behind the article to justify retaining it. Even so, I agree that a ton of folks want to know about Cooper, so I'd like to see it stay. Capnpen 03:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Redirect. No WP:BIO here, nowhere close. Redirect only b/c covered in Archie article. Not exacltly a plausible search term, either...- crz crztalk 17:44, 6 November 2006 (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.