882:, but he didn't actually play at the fully professional level of his sport since he was only on the offseason/practive squad. There is enough non-trivial coverage of him in reliable sources out there to establish notability as a college player and his "membership" on a professional team. Although failing WP:ATH doesn't automatically make him non-notable I haven't seen any coverage that makes him stand out in any way, hence the delete. If he were to actually play professionally then he would warrant an article in my opinion.
1002:. I'm on the fence, in part as I know precious little about American football, okay, about any footie ball. Most pro athletes have high-profile careers if only because they were famous and after they retire from their sport they are a famous person doing some other job ala - "former pro footballer now sells insurance." This only gives a sentence for our purposes here but it's worth stating; many pro-athletes are a lot more visible than that. Cunard, or someone?, could you have a turn at sorting through
48:. I felt that the keep side had the point here. While this may be a borderline case, he has been covered; and, even if this isn't the first time a local athlete has been covered by local papers, he's still been the subject of coverage in his area. Local notability isn't the same as being a household name, but it's still notability. Props to
1007:
1003:
659:- It appears to be no use, but none of that coverage is substantial. He's really not notable enough, no matter how this vote turns how. Hell, I created the article and I know he's not notable enough. Especially since he hasn't been with a pro team this year and his professional career seems to be over before it started.►
940:
by applying the primary notability criterion. If someone independent of the subject has gone to the effort of creating and publishing a non-trivial published work about it, then that someone clearly deems the subject to be notable. Knowledge (XXG) editors determine whether a subject is notable not by
1132:
articles certainly fall outside this. They, however, only commented on him because he was signed to the Bills. Whether this is or isn't enough for him to be notable seems like a very fine line to me - just like whether or not he is still a professional athlete because he was signed even though he
1115:
states that local newspapers covering college athletes, even though they are reliable sources, do not neccesarily help to determine the notability of a college athlete. "It has already been accepted that professional athletes, regardless of their accomplishments in their field, may have articles.
720:
with the Bills doesn't make him notable enough, then an article that listed Felton as a handful of Bills signings shouldn't either. Most of that coverage isn't focused on him, but rather the result of playing at an SEC school. Knowledge (XXG) has some serious notability issues if that's enough for
461:
451:
540:
Update: Thanks to User:Cunard for working on this article. It's clear that to me there are sufficient reliable sources for a stub article. I wish the sources had more information about his life and career but they are sufficient to source what is there and meet
762:
disqualify those sources. The last two articles I cited are significant coverage about Felton's college football career. One of those sources devotes an entire article about Felton's impact on his football team. I concur that Felton fails
1116:
But local newspapers also cover high school and college athletes. In every city and town, there are several high schools and colleges and papers that cover them. So inevitably, these athletes will receive coverage." Additionally
1133:
didn't play a single actual game. Also my former statement about him not "standing out" was poor wording on my part. Notability is not subjective. I'm just still not totally convinced the he is (or perhaps isn't) notable.
1043:. It doesn't matter if Felton is "famous". What matters is that Felton has received coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. My "keep" vote above lists five in-depth reliable sources that prove Felton's notability.
967:
Indeed, notability ≠ importance. Notability is a guideline to help measure whether there are, or are likely to be, sufficient sources to write a V, NPOV, NOR article. What's key here is that the article is able to meet policy
1089:
I have cleaned up and expanded the article through regular editing. If there is any other important facts that I have failed to include, please post them on the talk page, so I can include them in the article. Thanks,
350:
178:
808:
created the article before but it got speedied per A7. And you actually created in when the
Raiders signed him...Plus those sources do qualify as "significant coverage" there are probably some more out there
941:
considering whether they themselves think that it is notable. They determine whether a subject is notable by looking for the existence of non-trivial, independently sourced, published works on the subject.
1064:. Based on the sources already presented and the likelyhood that more certainly exist i think this person passes GNG and the article thus can be fixed through regular editing and deletion is unneeded.
730:
I also think it's relevant that if I hadn't created the article in my haste to create them for every undrafted NFL rookie, no one ever would have because his professional career never even took off.►
247:
1010:
are listed as having no fee so might be a better place to start. If valid ones can be added to the article or at least listed here it may help folks see that there likely is or is not a
139:
950:
The sources I have cited are clearly non-trivial, so there is no reason for deletion. Whether or not Felton is famous or "stands-out" should have no bearing on his notability.
283:
344:
172:
1163:. Because there are a variety of nontrivial newspaper articles (some local, some non-local) about this athlete, I strongly believe that he passes WP:BIO.
805:
429:
517:'s sources, particularly on his college career seem like they could make a V, NPOV, NOR article. I would like to see how it works in the article.
425:
492:
which discusses his freshman year at the
University of Arkansas. The ample coverage in reliable sources means that Robert Felton passes
17:
106:
101:
110:
904:
You are basing your delete vote mainly on Robert Felton not passing WP:ATHLETE. Why? Notability is not subjective. I agree with
1142:
891:
576:
per above links. A starter at a BCS school will almost always have an abundance of "significant coverage" by reliable sources
816:
637:
617:
402:
296:
260:
224:
93:
849:
All I have to say is that if someone with Felton's life accomplishments is notable, Knowledge (XXG) needs higher standards.►
365:
193:
943:
915:
332:
160:
932:
481:
1189:
36:
70:
377:) news. Maybe a different person. Thank you nominator for taking the time to try to save this article first, as per
919:
1155:
Local newspapers do cover college athletes, but there is no reason to disqualify these sources because of this.
1188:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
326:
154:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
822:
716:- And sorry, but some of these articles just should not be enough to make someone notable. If Robert Felton
643:
623:
408:
302:
266:
230:
1172:
1146:
1099:
1080:
1052:
1030:
990:
959:
895:
860:
828:
786:
741:
704:
688:
670:
649:
595:
563:
535:
505:
414:
390:
322:
308:
272:
236:
150:
75:
53:
1156:
985:
558:
530:
372:
200:
764:
470:
provide more coverage about him. There are also more reliable sources that cover his college years.
1138:
887:
358:
186:
378:
1164:
1091:
1065:
1044:
1015:
951:
810:
778:
680:
631:
611:
514:
497:
476:
396:
290:
254:
218:
97:
49:
909:
851:
732:
661:
586:
Just going to strike my comments in light of comments made by the guy who created the article
471:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1117:
1112:
1168:
1095:
1048:
955:
782:
684:
501:
466:
456:
1160:
1011:
969:
879:
755:
607:
493:
338:
214:
210:
166:
973:
591:
581:
546:
518:
433:
1134:
1120:"is not a policy, but may be consulted for assistance during and AfD discussion." The
883:
767:, but that doesn't mean that this article should be deleted. WP:ATHLETE is a subset of
701:
386:
768:
542:
447:
89:
81:
1128:
1122:
905:
442:
127:
771:, so if Felton passes WP:N, whether or not he passes WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant.
754:
The first three articles I cited provide enough coverage about Felton to pass
587:
577:
773:
I expanded and sourced this article before Chris Nelson's delete vote, so G7
382:
1111:- I came across something else that might be relevant to this discussion.
485:
437:
758:. Yes, the articles were about his failure to get drafted, but that
1159:, so we can have as many articles as we want, as long as they pass
700:
Not notable enough, he most likely wont ever play professionally.--
1182:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
938:
determine whether the world has judged a subject to be notable
929:
1006:
news hits to see if any of these are for this Robert Felton?
317:
correct me if I am wrong, but there are a lot of sources in (
480:
discusses Felton's sense of humor and his impact on the
920:
User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not subjective
134:
123:
119:
115:
395:
Most of those hits are about a chief police officer.--
357:
248:
list of
American football-related deletion discussions
185:
446:provides information about him being signed by the
371:
199:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1192:). No further edits should be made to this page.
545:; one of the articles is completely about him.
284:list of Athletes-related deletion discussions
8:
278:
242:
282:: This debate has been included in the
246:: This debate has been included in the
217:due to lack of "signifcant coverage".
679:How are the sources not substantial?
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1157:Knowledge (XXG) is not made of paper
482:University of Arkansas football team
1039:As I commented above notability is
490:The Morning News/Razorback Central
24:
496:and this article should be kept.
432:, I was able to find a number of
606:The links Cunard provided show
426:this Google News Archive search
1:
628:) 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
584:) 11:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
630:I think I'll let this run.--
1173:01:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
1147:01:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
1100:01:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
1081:01:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
1053:01:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
1031:15:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
991:05:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
960:05:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
896:05:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
861:02:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
829:02:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
787:01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
742:01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
705:01:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
689:01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
671:01:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
650:12:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
596:05:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
564:05:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
536:03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
506:01:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
415:23:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
391:23:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
309:22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
273:22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
237:22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
76:05:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
52:for fixing up the article.
1209:
381:I strongly respect that.
1185:Please do not modify it.
936:Knowledge (XXG) editors
32:Please do not modify it.
1014:threshold being met.
436:about the subject.
477:Log Cabin Democrat
44:The result was
989:
948:
947:
562:
534:
311:
287:
275:
251:
1200:
1187:
1077:
1071:
1027:
1021:
983:
981:
978:
930:
878:- Almost passes
857:
854:
825:
819:
813:
738:
735:
667:
664:
646:
640:
634:
626:
620:
614:
556:
554:
551:
528:
526:
523:
484:. There is also
467:The Buffalo News
457:The Buffalo News
434:reliable sources
411:
405:
399:
376:
375:
361:
305:
299:
293:
288:
269:
263:
257:
252:
233:
227:
221:
204:
203:
189:
137:
131:
113:
67:
34:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1190:deletion review
1183:
1075:
1069:
1025:
1019:
979:
974:
855:
852:
823:
817:
811:
736:
733:
665:
662:
644:
638:
632:
624:
618:
612:
552:
547:
524:
519:
450:. Furthermore,
409:
403:
397:
318:
303:
297:
291:
267:
261:
255:
231:
225:
219:
213:and also fails
146:
133:
104:
88:
85:
73:
72:Call me MoP! :D
54:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1206:
1204:
1195:
1194:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1150:
1149:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1084:
1083:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1041:not subjective
1034:
1033:
996:
995:
994:
993:
946:
945:
942:
934:
928:
927:
926:
925:
899:
898:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
747:
746:
745:
744:
725:
724:
723:
722:
708:
707:
694:
693:
692:
691:
674:
673:
653:
652:
569:
568:
567:
566:
508:
419:
418:
417:
312:
276:
207:
206:
143:
84:
79:
71:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1205:
1193:
1191:
1186:
1180:
1179:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1131:
1130:
1125:
1124:
1119:
1114:
1110:
1107:
1106:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1072:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1022:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1004:the 160 or so
1001:
998:
997:
992:
987:
982:
977:
971:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
939:
935:
931:
924:
921:
918:)'s essay at
917:
914:
911:
907:
903:
902:
901:
900:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
874:
873:
862:
859:
858:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
830:
826:
820:
814:
807:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
789:
788:
784:
780:
776:
770:
766:
761:
757:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
743:
740:
739:
729:
728:
727:
726:
719:
715:
712:
711:
710:
709:
706:
703:
699:
696:
695:
690:
686:
682:
678:
677:
676:
675:
672:
669:
668:
658:
655:
654:
651:
647:
641:
635:
629:
627:
621:
615:
609:
605:
600:
599:
598:
597:
593:
589:
585:
583:
579:
575:
565:
560:
555:
550:
544:
539:
538:
537:
532:
527:
522:
516:
512:
509:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
478:
473:
469:
468:
463:
459:
458:
453:
449:
448:Buffalo Bills
445:
444:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
420:
416:
412:
406:
400:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
380:
374:
370:
367:
364:
360:
356:
352:
349:
346:
343:
340:
337:
334:
331:
328:
324:
321:
320:Find sources:
316:
313:
310:
306:
300:
294:
285:
281:
277:
274:
270:
264:
258:
249:
245:
241:
240:
239:
238:
234:
228:
222:
216:
212:
202:
198:
195:
192:
188:
184:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
152:
149:
148:Find sources:
144:
141:
136:
129:
125:
121:
117:
112:
108:
103:
99:
95:
91:
90:Robert Felton
87:
86:
83:
82:Robert Felton
80:
78:
77:
74:
68:
65:
61:
57:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1184:
1181:
1129:Buffalo News
1127:
1123:Toronto Star
1121:
1108:
1073:
1067:
1061:
1040:
1023:
1017:
999:
975:
949:
937:
923:
912:
875:
850:
774:
772:
759:
731:
717:
713:
697:
660:
656:
603:
601:
573:
571:
570:
548:
520:
510:
489:
486:this article
475:
472:This article
465:
462:this article
455:
452:this article
443:Toronto Star
441:
438:This article
421:
368:
362:
354:
347:
341:
335:
329:
319:
314:
279:
243:
208:
196:
190:
182:
175:
169:
163:
157:
147:
63:
59:
55:
45:
43:
31:
28:
876:Weak delete
515:User:Cunard
345:free images
173:free images
50:User:Cunard
765:WP:ATHLETE
760:should not
721:inclusion.
608:notability
1135:Narthring
1008:these 107
884:Narthring
702:Yankees10
511:Weak keep
440:from the
379:WP:BEFORE
315:weak keep
1143:contribs
916:contribs
892:contribs
812:Giants27
806:actually
775:does not
633:Giants27
613:Giants27
604:Withdraw
430:this one
398:Giants27
292:Giants27
256:Giants27
220:Giants27
140:View log
1118:WP:MILL
1113:WP:MILL
1109:Comment
1000:Comment
906:Uncle G
777:apply.
718:signing
714:Comment
351:WP refs
339:scholar
179:WP refs
167:scholar
107:protect
102:history
1165:Cunard
1161:WP:BIO
1092:Cunard
1045:Cunard
1012:WP:GNG
976:Double
970:WP:CSP
952:Cunard
880:WP:ATH
856:Nelson
853:Chris
809:too.--
779:Cunard
756:WP:BIO
737:Nelson
734:Chris
698:Delete
681:Cunard
666:Nelson
663:Chris
657:Delete
549:Double
521:Double
498:Cunard
494:WP:BIO
424:Using
323:Google
215:WP:GNG
211:WP:ATH
209:Fails
151:Google
135:delete
111:delete
66:uppets
58:aster
588:Corpx
578:Corpx
488:from
474:from
464:from
454:from
366:JSTOR
327:books
194:JSTOR
155:books
138:) – (
128:views
120:watch
116:links
16:<
1169:talk
1139:talk
1126:and
1096:talk
1068:Banj
1062:Keep
1049:talk
1018:Banj
986:talk
980:Blue
956:talk
910:talk
888:talk
783:talk
769:WP:N
685:talk
592:talk
582:talk
574:Keep
559:talk
553:Blue
543:WP:N
531:talk
525:Blue
502:talk
460:and
428:and
422:Keep
387:talk
383:Ikip
359:FENS
333:news
280:Note
244:Note
187:FENS
161:news
124:logs
98:talk
94:edit
46:keep
1066:--
1016:--
610:.--
373:TWL
201:TWL
1171:)
1145:)
1141:•
1098:)
1076:oi
1051:)
1026:oi
972:.
958:)
944:”
933:“
894:)
890:•
827:)
804:I
785:)
687:)
648:)
594:)
513:.
504:)
413:)
389:)
353:)
307:)
289:--
286:.
271:)
253:--
250:.
235:)
181:)
126:|
122:|
118:|
114:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
69:-
62:f
1167:(
1137:(
1094:(
1074:b
1070:e
1047:(
1024:b
1020:e
988:)
984:(
954:(
922::
913:·
908:(
886:(
824:s
821:|
818:c
815:(
781:(
683:(
645:s
642:|
639:c
636:(
625:s
622:|
619:c
616:(
602:*
590:(
580:(
572:*
561:)
557:(
533:)
529:(
500:(
410:s
407:|
404:c
401:(
385:(
369:·
363:·
355:·
348:·
342:·
336:·
330:·
325:(
304:s
301:|
298:c
295:(
268:s
265:|
262:c
259:(
232:s
229:|
226:c
223:(
205:)
197:·
191:·
183:·
176:·
170:·
164:·
158:·
153:(
145:(
142:)
132:(
130:)
92:(
64:P
60:o
56:M
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.