Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeley Dorsey

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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 18:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keeley Dorsey

Keeley Dorsey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

non-notable player on minor team → R Young {yakłtalk} 12:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

ONE touchdown all season, 68 yards all season...star players would see that as a bad game. Simply being a player on a third-rate college football team does not make someone notable or memorable or leave a lasting legacy. In addition, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Any time an article is created after the death, there must be a suspicion of that.

Further, it seems this is yet another case of the overvaluation of the input of young and immature editors, who often see the world only through their own lenses and don't seem able to distinguish between a current event and a lasting legacy.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 12:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment (after ec) - Well I don't know W. Marsh's real life age, but he's been editing here as long as you and is an administrator...so I wouldn't be so quick to toss around 'immature'. I'd remind you to AGF if you hadn't been here so long. That said, I'm leaning in favor of keep. Herr Dorsey might not have been a star football player, but as in some other cases a bizarre death can make one notable. How many college football players have died ever during conditioning workouts? He has a cite (which most truly non-notable college football players would indeed lack), and Wikipedia is not paper. Syrthiss 13:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The death while it's rare it's not completely bizzare, there has been many cases of a college or pro player die after practice, mainly because of heart issues, etc, which this appears to be one. If it was an heat stroke death then the case maybe more notable but there is nothing a person can do with an heart defect afterworkout. Each college football player has their own college page as well and could be sourced as well. Jaranda wat's sup 21:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This happens ALL the time, every year. If you watch the local news regularly...

782,000 for football+player+died+workout. Over 782,000 hits. Maybe the case-du-jour...until the next death. Hey, my grandmother died last week and she was the personal seamstress for Mrs. Steinbrenner (wife of George Steinbrenner). Does that make her notable? Oh wait Mrs. Steinbrenner doesn't have her own article, either.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 14:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about your grandmother. I wonder if Mrs. George Steinbrenner redirects to George Steinbrenner. Don't get me wrong, I tend to be a deletionist (ooo, all those fricken schools... *imagines my finger over the delete button*)...but I'm also willing to allow little stubby articles for questionably notable 3rd string athletes whose hearts a-splode just after football season ends. Syrthiss 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand our inclusion guidelines. They are intentionally not about subjective popularity, but rather about whether we can write a verifiable, NPOV article on a subject. See WP:N and WP:ILIKEIT. --W.marsh 15:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There has to be some standard of notability. What is the point of accomplishment if simply existing and dying is enough? Why bother to rush for 2,000 yards when 68 will do?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What the? I seriously doubt this kid's goal was to have a Wikipedia article about himself. --BigDT 23:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, newspaper articles are mainly about this person's death, and I don't see any source material that could be used to make this more than a few lines. It really is too bad what happened, but WP:NOT the obituary column. Seraphimblade 13:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What can I say beyond what I said on the article's talk page? It's verifiable, he meets WP:BIO ("The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person"). Wikipedia is not paper and this article's main crime is being about a very, very minor person who got sufficient media coverage to meet our inclusion standards. The only reason to delete this article is WP:IAR, and I don't see how keeping around this article is harmful at all, let alone enough to warrant ignoring rules to get rid of it. As an aside, oddly enough out of hundreds of articles I've created this is the first one to come to AfD. --W.marsh 15:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The main problem is if he was alive then he wouldn't have an article, all college football players is verifiable, same with all college athletes, but do we have articles on them, no and there is conscious to delete non-notable college athletes so WP:IAR doesn't apply nither. Jaranda wat's sup 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
If articles that meet WP:BIO are being deleted, they still meet WP:BIO and people are just choosing to ignore it for a subjective reason. If there are multiple non-trivial articles being written about a college athlete, they are eligible for a Wikipedia article. There's no real reason to delete them after they've been created except to reduce the amount of accurate information in Wikipedia... obscure but accurate articles don't hurt the project at all. --W.marsh 21:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Being a college football player doesn't mean it meets WP:BIO, only proffesional athletes who make the highest level of their compitetion ,and very major college players who expect to be drafted or won major awards in college meets it, i don't see where it says any player who ever played college sports meets it, if that's the case then there will be millions of articles. Jaranda wat's sup 21:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Take a closer look at how the current version reads... the only truly important part of modern WP:BIO is "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". --W.marsh 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yea but it also says Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. The only claim of notablity is dying. Of cource a sudden death of an athlete makes local news and sometimes that is covered by the AP, my newspaper had only one sentence of his death so it only minor death that made the news for not very long. Jaranda wat's sup 22:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Frankly I don't think you're reading WP:BIO closely enough, those planks are merely signs that the more important criterion of sufficient verifiability is met, a subject can easilly meet the main criterion without meeting the planks at the bottom. None of those planks have to be met before there can be an article, and that's explicitly said in the guideline. As I've said before the claim of playing for a Div. 1 sports program itself is a claim of notability. --W.marsh 22:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This really is less about Keeley Dorsey and more about W Marsh. Reading his profile he is an 'inclusionist' (i.e., an advocate for having an article on anything verifiable, forget the need for notability). Also, he tends to state half-truths, such as merely playing on a college football team meets WP:BIO when in fact it says something about "on a high level." Oop`s, let's just gloss over those words. Who needs performance, right?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 02:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You utterly miss my point about WP:BIO, he doesn't meet it for the subjective things like how he died or what level he played at, he meets it because he meets the only real qualification WP:BIO has: non-trivial coverage from independent sources. --W.marsh 02:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
My uncle played baseball at University of Central Florida, my former baseball coach and science teacher was an All-American in University of Florida, several of my cousins also played college ball same with the local card store owner and several classmates are going to play Division 1, they don't deserve articles though, I'm read WP:BIO many times, if it's claims importance verifiability has to back it up, not verifiability first and notablity after. Almost everything is verifiable. Jaranda wat's sup 22:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Very little is verifiable, really, most articles that come to AfD can never produce a single published reference. If 150+ newspapers carried articles about your relatives, obviously there is some level of notability. --W.marsh 22:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Most of the 150+ newspapers that carried the guy was only one sentence from the AP, ESPN spoke about it for 30 seconds, the death is now forgotten, many stuff makes the news and is forgotten after one day, we don't have articles on the amish girls who died in the school shooting recently or that kid who got stabbed in a New England school today or most tragic fires as they are carried by the same newspapers daily. Same with most American Idol contestants. What makes Dorsey different other then he died and was a college football player. Jaranda wat's sup 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unreal. if this guy really meets our notability guidelines I think that says more about our guidelines than his notability. WP:IAR and delete. Recury 16:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This person's death was reported on by numerous reliable sources, including ones of national attention. On the same topic but a different vain, USF is a major football program in a major football conference in the top college football league in the US. He was a very highly recruited player out of high school and these deaths are fairly rare (though increasingly more common). --Thomas.macmillan 19:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not really a major college football program, Division 1 yes but in one of the more minor coferences Jaranda wat's sup 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Not to get off topic, but the Big East is a major football conference. West Virginia and Louisville both had very realistic chances at the BCS title this year and USF beat Louisville in 2005 and West Virginia in 2006. Just throwing that out there.--Thomas.macmillan 21:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
They've never even been ranked... Recury 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Dying in an odd way is not usually notable. Maybe if you're the first to do so or your case leads to some sort of reform or medical breakthrough or... you get the idea. Regardless, this is another case of someone who is newsworthy being mistaken for someone who is notable. GassyGuy 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that this appears to meet one point of WP:BIO: The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Given the nature of this criterion, this would mean the article would clearly meet WP:BIO and should be kept. However, the only reason why this person was the subject of a non-trivial work is because he died in an unusual circumstance (heatstroke is common, nowadays; but it is still newsworthy when it involves sports players). We should ignore all rules as the criterion on WP:BIO only works for this article because of his death, and his article has no merit otherwise. Besides, since the person has not made a name for himself at the college level, I doubt there is much expansion that can be done to the article. Nishkid64 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The guidelines under Wikipedia:Notability (people) indicate that playing in a fully professional league is required except in primarily amateur sports (such as many college sports, but not football). I don't think signing a football letter of intent should automatically qualify someone for an article, and inevitably there will be a long spiral down as we debate whether benchwarmers at Division III or NAIA schools qualify. College football players who never play pro football should qaulify only if they achieve All-American status (as was often the case in the pre-NFL era and for some time afterward). There should be an article on mortality issues in college football, with substantial material on the pre-1910 era when dozens of players were dying annually. I don't think Dorsey is more notable than any of them. MisfitToys 00:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Uh no, WP:BIO explicitly says things like "playing in a fully professional league" are not required. That's literally what it says... "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted" and yet you claim the opposite. Meeting WP:N is what is required by WP:BIO. --W.marsh 01:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It says that playing in a fully professional league is not required IF the sport is primarily amateur; this was the case for the early years of college football. Exceptions are made (quoting the guidelines) if: "Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level." This specifically refers us to the first criteria, which is: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." That is clearly not the case with Dorsey; he falls short regarding the first criteria, so the one discussing sportspeople clearly applies. MisfitToys 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Are you seeing the bolded text before the entire list you're talking about? "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." The items on that list are just signs that it's likely that someone satisfies WP:N. --W.marsh 01:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
        • At any rate I think you also misunderstand what is meant by "[verification] should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level", that just means that in disputes over whether someone actually did perform in a professional/highest level situation, that an independent reliable source needs to be found to confirm that. --W.marsh 01:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
          • True, but there are no such sources in this case, as he clearly didn't perform at that level. MisfitToys 21:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
            • They aren't needed though, my point is that the list is merely a list of types of people who're likely to satisfy the reliable coverage requirement, the list specifically says meeting various items is not required. Maybe a few years ago it was, but things have changed. --W.marsh 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BIO. The sports clauses have absolutely nothing to do with whether this article meets the BIO criteria or not. There are probalby many other WP articles about people notable on their own right, who played college sports, and they aren't (nor should they be) held to the sports standard either. Just because the notability came as a result of the sport, it doesn't automatically void the first part of the BIO criteria. Neier 04:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how it meets WP:BIO just becuase it has reliable sources, David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy has realiable sources has well and it's close to being deleted, btw if articles on college football players that never reached the pros or All-Americans is created and kept I would see this project as completely hopeless and leave. Jaranda wat's sup 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The notability came as a result of the player's death, not just the player. We're not discussing sports biographies, but whether or not the notability of this particular sports player warrants an article. The only reason his article was created was because he died of a heatstroke after football practice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nishkid64 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
He didn't die of heatstroke (which he would be a little more deserving of an article if he did), he rather died likely from an heart defect which is a very common death, the only thing is that he died after working out rather than at home, etc. Jaranda wat's sup 20:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
An event such as the Beckham trade is not a biography, but a news event. WP:BIO requires multiple non-trivial coverage, which has been met. If there were a notability criteria for whether a single news event was notable enough for an article, the Beckham trade would probably fail it. An article on the "death of Keeley Dorsey" would fail it as well. Remarkable as it seems, this article is about the person, and there are specific guidelines for dealing with people articles. The article has met those, in my opinion (and the opinion of many others). Neier 11:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sad, but nn, fails WP:BIO. The line needs to be drawn somewhere.--Wizardman 20:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Uh it clearly doesn't fail WP:BIO, the argument for deletion is that we should ignore WP:BIO/WP:N here. --W.marsh 21:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It does if you look at it from a broader perspective. In 50, even 25 years from now there would be no indication of notability based on the info we have. That being said though, because his sudden notability seems to come solely from his death, he isn't quite worthy of an article.--Wizardman 19:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • None of that is actually a part of meeting WP:BIO though, there's only one thing an article has to meet, the other stuff is specifically labeled as not required. You just said he failed WP:BIO is all, he clearly doesn't. --W.marsh 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
          • The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. That is what I assume you're arguing. However, that means he passes WP:BIO solely because of his death, since that is why he has multiple non-trivial news articles. Yeah, I used a non-consesus verifiability test above that technically doens't count on WP:BIO. Anyway, if we allow him to have an article and his notability stems from his death, then that could be argued for everyone showing up on the Deaths in 2007 link. I'm hoping I have the policy right this time.--Wizardman 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, if we had articles on all those people the project would be better for it. As I've said we want more accurate/neutral articles, not fewer. WP:BIO's core criterion doesn't specify a concern about why someone would get non-trivial media coverage, and exclude certain reasons for it, because to do so is subjective and leads to bias. We've included articles with much flimsier cases for meeting WP:BIO, such as Rob Levin. --W.marsh 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
              • True, accurate articles are good, I just feel that the line has to be drawn somewhere on what college athletes can be considered notable. I'm actually an inclusionist, so your convincing me to not delete the article is probably inevitable. I went and googled Keeley Dorsey minus died, death, etc. and actually got a lot of results. Of course I should've done that in the first place. I'll look over the webpages and reconsider my stance (wanted to say vote but AfD's not a vote).--Wizardman 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: "A medical official said the official cause of Dorsey's death won't be known for four to six weeks." [1] His death canceled all on campus football visits during the height of the recruiting season and the team's end of season banquet as well. These are just more reasons to keep this artlce. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas.macmillan (talk • contribs) 21:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
Something like that always happen when a sudden death happen, also his death has nothing with football looks like, he was just doing a normal workout Jaranda wat's sup 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. Simply having being written about in a newspaper doesn't necessarily means a noteworthy achievement, under WP:BIO and "multiple independent non-trivial published works" such as a newspaper which circulated abou ta million copies, I would also qualify, and that would be for winning some science competitions in high school, and all sorts of people like car crash victims, assault victims, and small business owners in dispute with the city council, etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:BIO says nothing about the "million copies" thing... I mean this does meet WP:BIO, there's no real argument against that. And if multiple newspapers want to write about someone who won a science competition, A) there must be a reason, e.g. notability and B) there's no harm in an article, since we have accurate and sourceable information to use. The only real policy-based reason to delete this article is WP:IAR, and it's really unclear how reducing the ammount of accurate/neutral in Wikipedia actually improves anything. --W.marsh 02:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable in the slightest. StuartDouglas 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bold textDeleteBold text Not very notable. The only thing notable is that he died young.

  • Keep - I would probably not have taken the time to write this article, but someone did. There are several other keep voters. That implies there may be even more people out there who may want to read about him. Also, some commentors have noted that his school is not one of the famous football schools. In a way, that may make him all the more notable as one of the few football players from that school to ever receive such wide-spread media attention. He passes WP:BIO and Wikipedia is not paper, so there is no harm in having the article and no compelling reason to delete. Johntex\talk 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not nearly notable enough for what we should include. VegaDark 21:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Let's take a step back here - this is an argument about limiting the content in Wikipedia - something i am, within the Wikipedia policy lines, dead against - Quote from the Wikipedia 'What Wikipedia is not' page:

"Wikipedia is not a paper Encyclopaedia: This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page". Why not keep this article? In fact, i would like to see it expanded to include information about the dangers and history of sports workouts / practice - there are many angles this article could take.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.10.223 (talk • contribs) — 210.84.10.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    • Those are suitable issues for an article about college football safety, but not a bio article. MisfitToys 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep - WP:BIO says that someone is notable if they are the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Google news [2] has over ten pages of news stories about this person's death and plenty of them give biographical information that can be used to write a good article. If we were talking about a high school player who got coverage from his local newspaper, that's one thing ... but this is a IA college football player from a BCS conference and it made national news. --BigDT 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - given the additional sources referred to above, subject appears to meet WP:BIO. Notability is in the subject's very peculiar manner of death. Said sources should be worked into article right away. CyberAnth 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He's only famous because he died and no one will remember him five years from now but he technically satisifes WP:Bio. Quadzilla99 02:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You just gave a reason for deleting, not keeping Jaranda wat's sup 07:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable player on a college team, who was getting press even before he died (which I might add, his death was covered by every major newspaper and television station in the Tampa Bay area, a major media market). Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The three 'sources' listed are all local Tampa area news coverage, and can hardly be said to be a 'published' work.

Elitist theory, including 'bread and circuses,' states that you can keep the people preoccupied with sports and food, and take their money while they're not paying attention. It worked for the ancient Roman empire and it is working for modern-day America. Simple transient news coverage hardly merits an 'encyclopedia' entry. Wikipedia's danger is the same as that of video games: it can become unobjectively time-consuming. For all those who think they might 'save' this article: what a waste of time. No wonder the education of America is in such trouble.

Also, I thought that "Wikipedia is not a memorial." Clearly, had this player not died, there wouldn't have been news coverage. I disagree that because something is in the news, it merits its own article. By that low, low standard, Wikipedia ceases to be an encylopedia and becomes simply a lowest-common denominator. Might as well have articles on oneself at this rate. Come to think of it, I've been in the newspaper on six continents, too many times to count. I guess I merit an article, too. Anyone for starters?

However, the worst part of having an article like this being included is that it makes a mockery of effort. If rushing for 68 yards and 1 touchdown, career, is notable, then dying early, while we ignore someone who might have rushed for 68 yards/game but dies at 76, then what we are doing is simply creating a system that overvalues itself, youth, and current events, while lowering the standards to simply attracting media coverage, transient or no. What is the purpose of trying if simply existing is the new standard? → R Young {yakłtalk} 09:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please fix your signature - part of it points to User:Ryoung122 and part to User:Ryoung --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge

Comment While not commenting on the state of America's youth, nor being an expert Roman Historian like Ryoung, I would like to point out that a similar article on a deceased sportsperson, this time from Egypt. Mohamed Abdelwahab was an Egyptian footballer that died of unknown causes. While Abdelwahab might have had a more illustrous career, I believe that Dorsey also deserves to be kept.--Thomas.macmillan 16:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Al-Ahly is one of the biggest clubs in Africa. USF is probably the 4th or 5th biggest college football program in the state. Also that article has not passed an AFD so it isn't really relevant anyway (WP:INN). Recury 16:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems to be a news story of local interets only. ArtW 22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. As per Quadzilla99 and Thomas.macmillan. Dwain 00:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Explain why, AFD is not a vote? Jaranda wat's sup 07:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
He seems to be cutting-and-pasting "Keep Notable." all over WP:AFD. I'm sensing some sort of point or something. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • ...he meets WP:BIO ("The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person"). No, the person's death has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. The person himself, I'm sorry to say, hasn't. Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep his death was covered well covered by major media including ESPN.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:16, 27 January 2007 (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.