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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Mr Atchison's article has been somewhat improved, and now has sources which—although far from wonderful—are at least a plausible basis for a biography of a living person. This AfD detected a copyright violation which has now been revdelled; in closing this discussion I assume without checking that the deleting sysop complied with the first limb of WP:CRD when he did so. I will revisit this when and if the community ever decides that the GNG and/or BLP1E apply to sportspeople.—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Atchison (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)

Insufficiently-sourced biography of a living person. —S Marshall T/C 15:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 15:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Texas. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, played in the National Football League, thus meets WP:NGRIDIRON, see [1]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable only for that one event?—S Marshall T/C 15:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, some subject-specific notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event. So BLP1E doesn't apply here. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course, I forgot that our normal notability rules don't apply to sportspeople.—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this patronizing sarcasm really necessary? Etzedek24 was citing actual WP guidelines to support BeanieFan11's !vote. I know this is your nomination, and I can understand why you nominated it, but keep it civil. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 21:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability rules don't apply to sportspeople. They've got special exemptions from the GNG and, as we learn above, also from BLP1E. How is it uncivil to say so?—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (probably also draftify): Found this as a piece of SIGCOV but am thinking this may be a candidate for draftification. He was a single game PS elevation and I'm having trouble quickly finding proper sources outside of PFR. The nominator is right to want better sourcing in a BLP, so draftifying may be our best option. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to properly source the article if no one else is willing to. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11, I'm inclined to !vote draftify, but I'd rather wait to see if you can find some SIGCOV first. Can you ping me when you have a chance to search? SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 17:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spf121188: The article is now fully sourced. Cbl62 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BeanieFan11-- Yankees10 18:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At the time of nomination, the article was a low-quality piece largely copied from Atchison's on-line Baylor biography. I've added a number of additional sources to the article which now passes WP:GNG -- in addition to passing WP:NGRIDIRON. Cbl62 (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: The nomination (as "insufficiently sourced" for a living person) was understandable give the article's poor quality and BLP concerns. The article has since been improved with reliable-source citations for each and every factual assertion. Accordingly, might you consider withdrawing so that all can move on to more productive matters? Cbl62 (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's undoubtedly an improvement in terms of notability. I think that all the local newspaper coverage fails WP:ROUTINE, but it does verify some of the claims you make. I have two remaining questions, and they are, (1) What makes big12sports.com a reliable source considering their financial connection to the industry they're promoting? and (2) When you identified the text as a copyvio of [2], shouldn't you have blanked the page and tagged it with {{copyvio}}? I don't think we're allowed to keep copyvios in the article history and I suspect that strictly speaking this content may be eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G12.—S Marshall T/C 20:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it best to remove the old version from the history, I have no objection. I didn't verify whether it was a direct copy/paste from the Baylor bio, but it appears to have been based largely on that work. As for big12sports.com, I think it's not really debatable that a conference made up of prestigious universities is a "reliable" source -- I suspect you're really going after its "independence". Finally, your assertion that all local newspaper coverage (including feature articles) should be rejected as WP:ROUTINE fails because (i) in-depth coverage such as that found here is the very antithesis of "routine" coverage, (ii) WP:ROUTINE applies on its face to events and not biographies, (iii) repeated proposals to impose a bar on the use of local coverage have been rejected with the sole exception of WP:AUD in the context of companies, (iv) media outlets like The Dallas Morning News' are regional in nature; and (v) the fact that you are dredging up an entirely new deletion rationale after your original BLP grounds were resolved makes it appear that you just DONTLIKEIT and are straining to find any basis for deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I "think it best" to remove the old version; it's just that I'm vaguely aware of copyright as a consideration and I've read our pages about copyright a couple of times. I'd normally seek advice from one of our sysops, who are meant to enforce these things and therefore ought to know about them, or if I wasn't the AfD nominator I'd flag it with {{copyvio-revdel}}. I'm sorry you think I'm "dredging up" some new grounds here, but it was in fact you who identified the copyvio, and I do think copyright compliance is important.—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look at the copyvio issue on the prior version. While not an outright, complete copypaste, there was usage of some of the precise language from the BU bio with minor paraphrasing. I've endeavored to remove such verbiage from the current text, but you raise a valid point about possible revision deletion on the prior version. I've left a note for our copyright specialists at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems seeking further clarification on the revdel point. BTW, my comment about dredging up new issues had to do with your attempt to apply WP:ROUTINE as a basis for ignoring SIGCOV now found in the article. That comment had nothing to do with the possible COPYVIO (which I in fact raised). Copyright violation is a serious issue, and you are correct to point it out. Cbl62 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of an abundance of caution, I did revdel the prior version. Cbl62 (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, per Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep in its current state, the article and sources show a clear pass of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thank you, Cbl62 for letting me know about the new sources. This meets GNG. I know there are plenty of users who truly believe articles of NFL players who played in one game shouldn't be here, but I think this subject passes GNG with ease. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 21:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per everyone's comments excluding the nominator. It does have have a couple pieces of minor cleanup it needs which I'll do after posting this.--Rockchalk717 23:52, 20 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.