Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riley Dodge

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. Valid arguments on either side and no consensus to delete; default to keep. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Riley Dodge

Riley Dodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Former high school standout who fell into obscurity in college. Once notable, now no longer is. bender235 (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Notability cannot be lost once it is gained per WP:NTEMP. I'm still finding articles on the web that are far and above any "routine" coverage, such as Dodge's ankle injury improving and UNT QB Dodge moving to receiver.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The 2009 ankle injury is from "ESPNDallas.com" and is what you would expect for local coverage of a starting college athlete. Important local athletes in high schools also get such mentions. SalHamton (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

First off, no ESPN and regional affiliates do not report ankle injuries on high school athletes unless they are extraordinarily noteworthy. Second, even if they did, that wouldn't negate this one. And third, try looking at USA Today "Coach Dodge and quarterback Dodge steer North Texas", Dallas Morning News "http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/sunbelt/2009-08-24-northtexas_N.htm", Boston.com "Dodge faces win-or-else season at North Texas", Sports Illustrated "The Son Also Shines", and a multitude of others. Just click on the "news" link above and you'll be taken to hundreds. Subject clearly passes the general notability guideline, and that is more than enough to establish notability even if the subject were to fail other specific guidelines per WP:ABELINCOLN.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

In the link you provided the byline is "ESPNDallas.com," which is a regional affiliate. ESPNDallas.com has an entire section on local high school news, the ESPNDallas.com high school blog is here (note the coverage of mundane events) or go here for a specific high school. Many news agencies run articles about local football injuries even without a notable athlete. For example, this one from the same region of the country. I don't think you'll argue an average high school center sitting out a season meets GNG. Also you can find local ESPN stories like this story about a high school runner collapsing and being carried to the finish line.

I mentioned the Sports Illustrated article below (same article, different link). Your Boston.com article is about the father Todd Dodge. The son is only mentioned in minor parts, namely because the father made his freshman son the starting quarter as their losing streak continued. Then it points out the son was no longer the quarterback! The Dallas Morning News is also about the losing season, which is mostly about the father as well with the son mentioned in two places, including that the son didn't play a specific regular season game! Those trivial mentions fail to meet GNG for the son and likely belong in the father's article since he was fired for his losing streak. The 2009 USA Today article you mentioned twice is about "Riley Dodge's best-known highlight" being "his most embarrassing." It points out a lot of people on youtube watched the "embarrassing" event, which is him vomiting after throwing a pass. That mention is the best source as it deals with him and his college career, but as most briefly popular youtube clips it fails WP:EVENT. I don't think a quarterback vomiting is reason to keep this. SalHamton (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the ESPN High School Blog covers high school sports -- and high school football is notable. It doesn't carry injury reports of every player. It does report on noteworthy events of notable high school athletes. The USA Today article names him in the title of the article. The Boston.com article actually considers him enough of a source to quote him. And the USA Today article points to his notability. You mention that it talks about the youtube clip of him vomiting. You fail to mention the next line of the story: "Then he called for the snap and threw a perfect ball to a streaking receiver for the go-ahead score." And you fail to mention the other hundreds of articles about the subject that show up in Google Search. The argumens sound a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that is not a reason to delete an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Where did I say it carries "injury reports of every player"? My point was the injury was a local mention and (quoting myself from above) "is what you would expect for local coverage of a starting college athlete." I then went on to say "Important local athletes in high schools" get those too. Such local articles don't mean every injured local athlete who gets a write-up should have a Wikipedia article. If there really were "hundreds of articles" about this person then you can do much better than local articles, articles about his father that mention the son didn't play a game, or articles about throwing a pass and vomiting (WP:EVENT). Aside from local sports coverage, his father's fame and the pass/vomit, what is he notable for in the sport? Does he hold ANY record, played in a championship game or have any college honors? It seems you are asserting he is notable for having played quarterback for his father's college team (fails WP:ATHLETE) and for the USA Today article about pass/vomit (fails WP:EVENT). It isn't a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but a lack of notability-- the reason the nominator created the AFD. SalHamton (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability comes from the continuous coverage in the media, not because of any skill or ability as a player. The subject doesn't have to hold any record or play in any championship game if he surpasses WP:GNG which he clearly does, and anyone who would click on the news link above would clearly see that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE#College_athletes mentions non-trivial media about awards or records. This subject has none of that. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and defines "significant coverage" as sources that "address the subject directly in detail." As explained above and below, this subjects fails that requirement too. SalHamton (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A simple Google News search turns up over a hundred articles. A broader Google search returns over 14,700. I'll grant that a lot of them are not on the subject and are simple search engine errors, but there are more than enough to establish notability. Yes, they address the subject in detail. Yes, they address the subject in depth. No, they are not routine.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

First off, google hits aren't an argument to keep, see: WP:GHITS. Secondly besides the search errors, there are other people with this name including an author ("Riley-Dodge Vows Read in Westwood," Los Angeles Times, 1945) and admiral Frank Riley Dodge ("After 100 Years, Admiral Doesn't Get Worked Up Easily," Chicago Sun-Times, 1995) in those results. Thirdly, the quality of the results is telling. The second google hit is his twitter account where he describes himself as a "Graduate Assistant" in College Station. In google news most of the relevant results to this Riley are trivial mentions in local reports of specific games, including the type of blogging you cite above with the ankle injury. SalHamton (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)‎

You really should read stuff before you post discussions about it. The "Riley-Dodge Vows Read in Westwood," Los Angeles Times, 1945 article (which is indeed a mis-matched search hit) you say is about an author. Wrong--it's about a wedding. It's obvious you aren't actually doing the research you claim to be doing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE#College_athletes. The article is about the college football career of player that earned no awards, records or hall of fame honors. The first reference (RiseMag) doesn't exist and redirects to another website. The 2007 Sports Illustrated article is rather detailed in its high school section about his future college prospects. The Dallas Morning News (the link is dead) is equally about his famous father (Todd Dodge). The last reference is from 2011 and is about "play[ing] his last down at North Texas" after his father was fired. Any relevant material about the son playing for his father belongs in the father's article and this can be deleted. SalHamton (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep the nominator admits the person was "once notable". Well, if someone was notable, they still are. Notability is not temporary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Relister's comment: Despite the length of the discussion above, it was only between two people. Relisted to encourage additional participation. —Darkwind (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Sports Illustrated, USA Today[1], The Dallas Morning News[2] and the Bleacher Report[3] are more than sufficient to establish notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Bleacher Report is not a reliable source, the Dallas and USA Today sources is trivial, routine coverage that all athletes get, we only have the SI source but I explain that below. Secret ^account 03:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • In the USA Today reference, his name in the title. That's not "trivial" -- that's a featured article. The Dallas Morning News article is a feature article on the subject. And apparently Bleacher Report (see article) has significantly cleaned up their act and recieved praise from Forbes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • USA Today was about him playing for his father and more focused on his father if anything, the Dallas source is "Football: Riley Dodge decides to transfer", extremely routine coverage. After that coverage simply disappeared. Secret ^account 18:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The si.com article is substantial coverage about both the son and the father. The reason they may be particularly interested in him is because of his father, but that's a real world interest, and it should not matter to us why the RW is interested, only that they are interested. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete when we are dealing with these kind of articles, high-school standouts that never achieved any major playing time, we treat it like a WP:BLP1E. Arguably the SI source is substantial coverage, but it is mostly because of the "father" and discusses the son high-school career. If he didn't had a very notable father, he would have never gotten that coverage. The other sources linked above are all trivial, routine mentions all college athletes get, especially the Dallas source (a school transfer to a Division III school) Clear cut WP:BLP1E, never was notable under our guidelines. If he played extensively for a major college program or had major coverage covering his college career, I'll see a reason for keeping, but there is none. Secret ^account 03:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Question what policy or guideline states that "when we are dealing with these kind of articles, high-school standouts that never achieved any major playing time, we treat it like a WP:BLP1E" ? I found nothing in WP:BLP1E that would lead to that interpretation.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The BLP1E is be the high school career here, and no other claims of notability outside that, no decent college career, no professional career, nothing else. If anything a merge to his father page is a good solution, as most of the coverage is mostly focused on him playing for his father. Again if it wasn't for his father, he would have never had an article. Paul can we agree on a merge here instead? Secret ^account 18:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't think so. You call a feature articles "routine coverage" and take a four-year span of time and lump it into "one event" -- I think you're being excessive in the interpretation of the guidelines and are really coloring outside the lines. There is nothing that I can find that would deem to take his "high school career" as you put it and lump it into "one event" -- nor is there any reason to consider the feature articles pointed out here to be "routine coverage", nor have the other articles and web references mentioned above about his college career been addressed, and nor has the case of notability being lost (which you cannot do in Wikipedia). Subject clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Secret summed up my feeling well. We need a very high bar for high school athletes, his closest claim of notability was his high school career. He would not have received the coverage if his father wasn't famous. J04n(talk page) 16:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Question you do realize that he is not a high school athlete anymore, don't you?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • yes, I commented that his biggest claim to notability was his high school career. J04n(talk page) 17:17, 22 April 2013 (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.