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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Houston[edit]

Marcus Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject played seven college football games for Colorado State. Notability seems to be lacking, Don't think this subject passes GNG based on sources. He was highly touted out of High School it seems, and does have a little bit of coverage from The Denver Post, but I don't think that alone would constitute passing GNG. Spf121188 (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: Spf121188, with this diff, tried to close as withdrawn. While they can certainly express their own change of view, WP:WDAFD does not permit withdraw/close once, as here, another editor has supported the deletion rationale. Cbl62 (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Cbl62 Spf121188 (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Your intention to withdraw shows that you are able to keep an open mind about your own nomination -- something that pride sometimes prevents us from doing. The closer should take into consideration your change of view, and you are free to expound on that is you wish. Cbl62 (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer; As the nominator, after users brought reliable sources to light, I do believe notability is established and the article can continue to be improved with said sources. Just making an official note of it. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 19:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we really need more sustained and long lasting coverage to justify an article. Topics need to be coverage with longevity. Basically a top out of high school recruit being touted is just never in and of itself enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:IMPACT. In a couple of quick searches I found SIGCOV here and here and here. He is ranked as a top 100 recruit of all time on 247Sports, one of the industry standards, and I expect that there was significant coverage of his recruitment, given that he was the highest-ranked running back in his class and the 5th highest overall in his recruiting class. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or draftify Houston appears to be notable, but the article needs an incredible amount of work. Sports Illustrated ran an in-depth piece on him in 2000 and the New York Times had a story on him as a senior after transferring in 2003. The Denver Post has headlines featuring his name as recently as 2019 so it appears that coverage has been sustained beyond his initial recruitment. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- GPL93, I would support this as an alternative, because the article is in terrible shape, borderline TNT worthy. There does seem to be notability here, but it appears none of this has really been demonstrated effectively in the article. Is this something you think you could work on a bit? If so I'll withdraw this one. Etzedek24 helped me with access to Newspapers.com, so I'll do better with performing thorough BEFORE searches. Spf121188 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spf121188: If I have time I will try, although it will essentially require replacing all existing content so I don't hate just WP:TNTing the whole thing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spf121188: Still needs work, particularly surrounding his high school career/recruitment and his issues with the coaching staff and the CU program, but I just finished rewriting a basic and more clear entry. Also, I'm not sure if a withdraw is permitted given the previous delete vote. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think Houston qualifies as an exception to the "NFL game time or bust" rule of usual given his status as a HS recruit. He wasn't exactly Maurice Clarrett in terms of media profile, but somewhere between Marcus Dupree and Darrell Scott. Also, I don't agree with removing the USA Today All-USA team honor. --bender235 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Bender235, refer to this discussion when it comes to USA Today HS AA teams. This isn't the place to discuss it, but I wanted to just bring that to your attention. Hey man im josh is the one who took it out of the infobox, but that discussion is why. Spf121188 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bender235: There is no "NFL game time or bust" rule, as NGRIDIRON is an inclusive rather than exclusive rule. College athletes who never turn pro are and always have been eligible for inclusion if they pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG per above cited sources. Players can still be notable without playing a game in the NFL. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG with SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources including Sports Illustrated (here). Whether rightly or wrongly, GNG is coverage-based, rather than performance-based. Houston didn't quite live up to the high expectations (636 rushing yards in his best season), but he got a slew of SIGCOV and thus clearly passes GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I agree this article passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2022 (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.