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, with the debate leaning toward keep. The chief argument of the delete proponents is that the coverage of Dorsey qualifies as a "short burst" a la WP:N#TEMP. As the keep proponents point out, however, his activity for a top-level amateur sports team makes it more of a slow trickle of minor coverage followed by a short burst of major coverage, and thus it is not actually his death alone that provides notability. BrownHairedGirl's suggestion of a merge is reasonable but has gotten no further comment; it can of course be considered through the usual editorial processes. Chick Bowen 05:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeley Dorsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Let's take a look at WP:BIO and how this article fails:

Basic criteria: Multiple reliable sources. "Technically" there are reliable sources about his death, rather than the person. I'm iffy, but willing to give this bio the benefit, so let's look at the additional criteria. "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." No. "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." No. "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." No. see below

Also, WP:BIO1E is technically right, he was only in the news when we was due to his death, nothing else came out of it. Also, from WP:N#TEMP, "A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." This was at best a short burst, we heard nothing before or since.

Honestly, despite it passing the basic criteria of having reliable sources, I still just can't see how this individual is notable at all, 11 months after the first AfD. Wizardman 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Surely while tragic for the family and shocking for the school, sports practice deaths are not really notable. --01:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs)
• Keep Uh, he did play at "the highest level in amateur sports", not sure how you concluded he didn't. --W.marsh 04:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mode of death is well recognised and non-notable except for inclusion in a medical/cardiological textbook. Person is non-notable. docboat (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Yes. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Paste (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just realized that what I said above was a little messy. When we say "competed at the highest level of amateur sports" I take it to mean that in college, they were at least a starter for the team, not a backup. Also, i can't see articles being written on every single college player, which if sourced is what seems to be argued. That's an argument for another time though. Wizardman 16:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what the guideline says, though... there's nothing about backup/starter, just that they competed at that level. The sources are there for Dorsey... they probably aren't for a huge number of college players. WP_BIO-meeting notability plus sources... there's nothing wrong with an article here... we don't have any space constraints. --W.marsh 03:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N, doesn't really meet WP:RS either IMHO (nor will it, obviously). Avruchtalk 03:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It cites 3 different reliable sources with non-trivial coverage about the subject, and there are 82 other articles about the subject not yet cited... so your comment seems to be exactly wrong. Are you sure you looked at the references and the guidelines you're citing? --W.marsh 03:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure. One link is broken, and the other two aren't necessarily trivial but they aren't comprehensive or supportive of his notability either (one says "So no, his loss won't be felt on the football field"). And yes, I've looked at the guidelines as well. Avruchtalk 04:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate even more, when people die in public it tends to be treated as a temporarily bigger deal than it would otherwise be - especially if the person is young and an athlete, for whatever reason. I don't personally believe that dying young makes someone notable, even if its covered in some newspaper articles. Stringer (whose name I can't remember) is the giant NFL player who collapsed - I think he might be considered notable, particularly because many of the articles about him placed his death in the larger context of football player health care and the dangers of heat exhaustion in the NFL. Plus, he was a pro player. This guy was a back bencher, and while his death is tragic it doesn't make his life notable. Avruchtalk 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said this fails WP:RS and WP:N though, but there's nothing saying it has to be only online sources, and you don't seem to think any of the sources so far are unreliable. WP:BIO says that, as long as the sources exist, a player just needed to have competed at the top amateur level... you may not agree with why he got so much coverage, but he meets any guideline people can trump up. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Barker (athlete) which has a similar claim of importance but vastly fewer sources is being roundly kept. --W.marsh 14:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm invoking WP:IAR then. Wizardman 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong delete. Someone who didn't do anything other than die at '19' is not notable...lots of people die at a young age. Extremely sexy (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to South Florida Bulls football. Dorsey is at best marginal wrt WP:BIO, but hi death does seem to have been a significant event in the history of the team, so it deserves a brief mention there. As with the many unexpandable stub articles on very old people (where the previous voter, Bart Versieck/Extremely sexy always voted "very strong keep") there is no need to make a stark binary choice between keeping a trivial permastub or deleting the article. Merger offers a simple way of retaining the info in the context of an an article on a notable topic, and ot's pit that it isn't used more often at AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets bio. About the all college football players making it, nope, read the criteria. Only if they played college football and meet the general RS bit. Many college football players would not meet the general BIO requirments for substantial coverage about them in RS. This players death received national news coverage in RS, played football at the highest level, thus notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Still a Keep, as he passes all criteria and nothing has changed to make him less notable.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I have to say. If having played at the highest level in amateur sports is notable, then this person is notable. Also easily passes WP:V, in particular due to an unfortunate death at a young age - being deceased doesn't make him less notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's the rub, though. His death seems to be the reason he's passing notability, which doesn't seem to make sense to me. Wizardman 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Doma-w (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTAVOTE Wizardman 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I studied the discussion above for my decision. And I do not want to repeat the arguments. Doma-w (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, just checking. Wizardman 03:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't this qualify as the "one bad event" that was the rationale for deleting the Doran article? ^Avruchtalk 03:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we should delete articles on otherwise notable people just because they died? People really get confused easily on this issue... playing at the top level of amateur sports has been a qualification in WP:BIO forever. Dorseey met that, and there are plenty of sources on him. Yet we should delete the article because he died? How does that make sense? --W.marsh 04:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO is a guideline, and he was hardly notable. Perhaps he was on the team, but did he actually play? ^Avruchtalk 04:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There still has to be a good reason for ignoring it even if it is a guideline... usually that reason would be about sources, but sourcing isn't an issue here. The main reason for ignoring it here seems to be "he died" which is pretty bizarre and no one can really elaborate on why that's a good reason to delete an article. If you read the article he did play, by the way. --W.marsh 04:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did he actually play? Sorry Avruch, but did you actually read the article? Aboutmovies (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2008 (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.