Talk:Chris Long/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notability on a pro level

One user thinks Long has to have more notability himself before a speech could be included. A couple of others think the speech needs to reach a higher level before it could be included in their minds. I would note this is one line, not an article about the speech, just one line on a chance to speak at a convention of trainers. This convention, as far as I know, has never been covered by USA Today. So, this is one line not an entire section or article, folks.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My error, Bugs also mentioned this "yet-to-be player". Is this because he "hasn't played an NFL down?". I think that standard for notability is way too high. How many NFL draft picks were asked to go to that speech? Only one. They, presumably could have asked any number of players, current, former, or future. They chose Long. Notable. This convention, while not notable in and of itself is by a group of trainers that would be notable and worthy of a Wiki article. Notable. Long is notable himself. Long does not give many speech like (to use the above example Bush) so one of a few would be: Notable. This convention was covered by USA Today. Notable. USA Today, to my knowledge, has not covered this convenion regularly, if ever. I could be wrong on that but I never remember it. So, if Long's presence makes it in a nation sports page it is: notable.

one editor deleting one line from an aricle and just saying it is non-notable does not make it so.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Bugs, be reasonable, come on. its one line. It's not liek the non-reggie wants to create a WikiProject to track all of Chris Longs utterances. MAybe the speech is not hugely, mindbloggingly notable, it is still rather noble, but the fath of the matter is to continue to argue about this extremely tiny and inconseverant point is beyond nitpicky. Smith Jones (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is about purpotion. The level of scrutiny here is much higher than on any other NFL project page. It is my desire to keep this page open to all users, even me, without having them deleted on a whim. With this consensus building it seems things are a lot less heated (though still tense) than before when it was chaos caused by arbitrary deletions of materiel some just plain WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So, one line doesn't "ruin" an article and given the greated issues, WP:BOLD, WP:IAR and openness and nPOV and verifiability, it seems the "default" position would be let there be freedom to edit without onerous editors and "instruction creep". No?72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with various premises of this section. The question of including or excluding this line has nothing to do with the notability of Long himself. The question is more of precedence. There are far too many players (and people in general) making too many similar press conference appearances to make the inclusion have any value. You could literally have hundreds or thousands of articles being peppered with lines about various indiscriminate press conferences, all reported by reliable sources and all from a completely neutral POV. And why stop there? Why not report on every aspect of all those people - what they wore to movie premieres and what cars they drive and what their feelings are on the war in Iraq? I'm sure you could find several equally indiscriminate factoids reported by reliable sources all from completely neutral POV. That doesn't make it a good idea to include them here.

I also disagree with the premise of "Come on. It's one line." From what I can tell, this line is just the tip of the iceberg. There have been several edit wars at this page over a wide variety of one lines. Hell, I wasn't even clear above on which edit war we were discussing! So yes, it's small now, but this has been repeated numerous times already (the guy's not even in the NFL yet and there's already an archived talk page here!) That leads to my next issue, the premise that this has a higher level of scrutiny than any other NFL project page. I may be wrong but it appears that only one person in a vocal minority is responsible for that fact, no? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is talking about movie premiers and all the other hyperbole. Just deal with what is and not what is in your mind as what might WP:CRYSTAL occur. The above may even be a rant and hysterical, no? LOL 72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

One person cannot cause this issue. The so-called "more experienced" editors are the ones applying levels of scrutiny that they do not apply to others. I have contended and I think proven that the level of scrutiny is because of who the poster is and not what the poster wishes to be in. When one is wronged, he has a right to defend. I didn't follow anyone around. Someone else did that. So, when you try for "fairness" I ask you apply it evenly. Blaming one poster and not others kind of shows what I have maintained, a non-reggie (to use a phrase) having higher level of scrutiny here and other places than any other user. It is my desire to mave that end and the rules of wiki upheld. WIki is not a democracy for openers. It is this misconception that WP:CONSENSUS makes wiki a democracy, that is not so. This is consensus building. Make points that are salient to the issue and then you will be participating. Don't just attack me. . . that's been done to death.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Plrsdr. im just trying to bring this to an amicalble solution. The way we're going now, this article will quickly degenerate into a morass of nitpicking and wikilawyering and slippery slope arguments that somehow mentioning one notable speech means WIkipedia will start rummaging through peoples underwear drawers. I understand you point WkKnight and to a certain extent I agree with it. all i am Asking is that we make this small concession --- allow ONE sentence mentioning in brief detail a notable speech. This is such a small consdieration that I am asking and yet it will stabilize this article. The fact that we are even having this insanely lengthy talk page discussion re: an alleged "athlete" who hasn't played in any actual games is proof that we need to take some rapid-response measures before this article winds up like certian other articles that I have noticed over the years. Smith Jones (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is that it's already degenerated into a morass of nitpicking and wikilawyering. Look at some of the reverts like this citing WP:SYNTH and edit summaries like this demanding that another editor stop editing the article. This one was out of control a long time ago so this is not a small issue, but a small piece of a big issue. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally, we agree. However, I would ask that you also mention that WP:CRYSTAL and other thinks began the nitpicking problem here, what is instruction creep. Anyone can object to anything, based on opinion and interpretation of a rule. So, the guiding principles of be bold, ignore all rules, verifiable, NPOV, openess in editing, don't bite the newcomers, eb welcoming, and the 5 pillars and so on are the principles that govern here. Your opinion or my opinion of what constitutes notability is not the guiding principle, nor is trying to make wiki a democracy and constanting saying, "No one agrees with you you" as some have done. The guiding principles are the things I have mentioned. What this is, and has been, is a few editors trying to WP:OWN this and other NFL project articles and that cannot stand. Might does not make right. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. this is a lto more than i Expec ted givin the circumstances that I came acros this article. It is clear that this article is irrevokably doomed. In that case, we should work to our best to gain consensus before making any changes before this article turns into a Probation case for the CommUnity. The sad thing is, this article is about someone who is barely even an athlete; it shouldnt have such commotion and violence but it does. Smith Jones (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not doomed unless the powers that be get their way. The "reggies" have taken a personal affront to a challenge of their non-authority (Emperors' New Clothes syndrome) and some of them are pissed. Now, if they'd just continue to participate in this, the first real consensus building the article can be contributed to by many editors. That way the spirit of wiki is upheld and a NFL project cabal can be broken and all NFL articles can be contributed to without fear of deletion. THAT would really benefit the FNL project which is stagnet because, in ym opinion, a few guys chase everyone away though the tactics used here. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson

Why does Chrisjenlson get to edit war without consequece???72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Particularly, don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes, hence the three-revert rule. Don't succumb to the temptation, unless you're reverting very obvious vandalism (like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUX0RZsammygoo", or someone changing "4+5=9" to "4+5=30"). If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk.

Chris, you are now in a edit war. You are a register user. Please follow the above guildeline or I will have to go to ANI again and you may be subject to yet another block.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't buy you trying to make Chrisjnelson the scapegoat here. This article sat nice and quiet while you were away. You are the only one lobbying for this change of yours and this can only be described as tendentious editing. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. You are trying to have majority rule. That will not stand. You are as guilty as he is of uncivil behavior.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've said nothing uncivil so you can stop throwing around threatening words. One scan over this talk page will convince any admin at ANI that you are guilty of tendentious editing. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who keeps saying majority rules. My allowing nelson to do what he wants you are being as uncivil as anyone. I am the one who wants the rules to be followed, it seems you do not. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your quoted text about reverting says to take it to the talk page. I'm all for that. But we've done that to exhaustion, and you're significantly outnumbered. Therefore it is you that has brought us back to reverting because you fail to acknowledge what has occurred on the talk page.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Outnumbered does not matter. This is not a democracy.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

i came here from AN/I. Although ChrisjNelson's got a record of some troubles with this page, this is not one of them. This is a content issue, one in which the apparent consensus is against including Long's comments. Having read the material, I concur. This is a non-notable instance in the guy's life. An athelete said people should be healthy and take care of themselves to a room full of people who help atheletes stay healthy and take care of themselves. In other words ,Choirs listen to preachers. ThuranX (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus. This is not what Smith0Joens said, he said it was WP:N. Why is your opinion better than his?72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference

This is from the WP:Consensus page. It may help all of us have a process here. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary.

Some indiscriminate things

• Frequently Asked Questions.
• Plot summaries.
• Lyrics databases.
• Statistics.
• News reports

Doesn't seem to apply here.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The onlything possible is a "news report" however this was an article in a major US newspaper, nto just a blurb. Taken in context that makes it WP:N. If it were in 6 point type on a boxscore, then maybe, but this was a feature, not a blurb.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Was it the only feature ever written about this guy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The real problem

The real issue is the mob mentality of a few people here. I have reverted twice. Chrisnelson 3 times. If I revert one more time I am with in the letter of the rule. However, all that will happen is wknight94 or Pats1 will come along and revert. That is why wiki is not a democracy. Cronies can gang up as has happend here before and they can get their way. Weak administrators allow this kind of thing and it has runined the NFL project here. It is now a pet project for just afew guys who WP:Own it all. Sadly, it seems the mob here, as uncivil as it seems will stop at nothing to allow my good-faith edits to stand. That is the height of uncivility, because it is saying I am not free to contribute and that is the last rule of wiki that should be violated yet it is violated here over and over again. It is mob rule.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction: we've each reverted twice.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You reverted 3 times.

(cur) (last) 20:16, 22 July 2008 Chrisjnelson (Talk | contribs) (11,902 bytes) (my second revert, for content reasons and not personal. it has been discussed at length on the talk why this is irrelevant. i fully welcome you taking it to ANI) (undo) (cur) (last) 20:12, 22 July 2008 72.0.36.36 (Talk) (12,454 bytes) (This has the right to say, it is WP:N. Just because a mob does not like it for personal reasons does not mean the mob rules. This is my 2nd revert, don't revert or I will go to WP:ANI) (undo) (cur) (last) 19:55, 22 July 2008 Chrisjnelson (Talk | contribs) (11,902 bytes) (neither do you. you will never have the majority on your side on this because it goes against common sense.) (undo) (cur) (last) 19:53, 22 July 2008 72.0.36.36 (Talk) (12,454 bytes) (Okay, you have had your revert. I understand you object but you are not the judge and you don't own this article.) (undo) (cur) (last) 19:09, 22 July 2008 Chrisjnelson (Talk | contribs) (11,902 bytes) (removing irrelevant content) (undo) (cur) (last) 18:41, 22 July 2008 72.0.36.36 (Talk) (12,454 bytes) (→Personal) (undo) 72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow look, other sections weren't working out above so let's start another. More classic WP:TE. Your speech is exactly like that of someone who is violating WP:OWN themselves. You need to stand down on this issue. Every time someone new comes in, they line up against you. Wikipedia is not Tiananmen Square so you really need to back off. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Back off? I take that as a threat. Please keep your uncivil threats to yourself72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying it for your own good. ThuranX is now at ANI advocating that you be blocked. If you don't leave this issue be very soon, you're going to be watching from the sideline. Not a threat - a prediction. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot be blocked if I have not broken a rule. I have reverted twice. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive/tendentious editing is a perfectly valid reason for a block. WP:BLOCK#Disruption - look it up. The WP:IDHT part of WP:POINT too - a blockable guideline. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(ECx3)IP, you don't understand how consensus is built. Consider a jury. a limited number of people all convene to decide an issue. each stands up, says column A or Column B/Guilty or not guilty. They look around. if it's unanimous, then it's decided. If not, they give reasons. they convince others, or wait for the holdout to clarify his reasons for digging in. The difference between a Jury and Wikipedia is we dont' need unanimity. If most of the editors agree for reasons within policy, then it's a done deal. that's what you have here. Although one editor above said we should keep it to make you happy, he didn't seem particularly impressed by the content itself. the rest of the editors have given various reasons for the failure to meet Notability. You just say over and over it's notable. As such, there IS consensus that the comments fail to meet notability. keep this up and I won't be the only one seeking a block for your WP:TE violations, of which we have a page full here nad user talk messages to buttress such a charge. ThuranX (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand the consensus process. I studied it. I tried my best to do consensu building using the chart listed on that page. However, if the xo-called "majority" won't do anything but argue then they have not participated. What you may be missing is this is personal in my opinion. Now, there is another edit smith-jones who agrees with me. He was not part of the majority and had a fresh point of view. I think you do, too. But I would suggest that there is more to this than content. I read their reasons and it seems the one guy who was ininvolved agreed with me. The other editors may have an ax to grind. Also, if you look at the WP:TE page again, you will see that I am not the one who fits that bill. I think I have the right to edit here. I reverted only twice, not three times as nelson did. All I have ever called for a a follwing of the rules. I don;t think there is anything wrong with that. Also, these desgreements were on this page, the discussion page, not the article. So, even in this disagreement I have followed the rules.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What a lovely personal attack. Because I disagree with you, I am not actually uninvolved, but have an ax to grind. "it seems the one guy who was ininvolved agreed with me". How, exactly, did I become 'involved' previous to your posting on AN/I? ThuranX (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood, I was not talking about you at all. I said you have a "fresh point of view". I think you and smith-jones are the ones uninvolved. Maybe I didn't type it clearly but I didn't attack you personally at all. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you look at what that is, it does not fit me. It fits another user here. I waited for a few weeks and put up 2 good faith edits. I have the right to do that. At the time I noted it. It was also smentioned by Smith-Jones that it was WP:N. Now, with that I put in a good faith edit. Then the edit war broke out. It is clear I am not allowed to edit here. It is clear that unless my edits meet with the approval of you and nelson and the rest then I an not welcome. If wikipedia is supposed to be welcoming then why I am attacked all the time?72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has any personal issues with this editor and is reverting him for such reasons. It is my opinion that the IP user is throwing such accusations out there in order to make it seems like he is the only one editing without bias and in Wikipedia's best interest, and therefore his edit should stand. Those of us that disagree with him disagree because of the content, not the user.

I also take offense to the accusation that an edit must meet the approval of myself and others. I make concessions, and even have on this very article. But I will not let a clearly non-notable item stand simply because the one editor that backs it is behaving in a way that reminds of me a hysterical child that refuses to accept he can't get his way.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, my good-faith edit stood for 27 minutes. I fail to see how that is a "consession" in this case. What am I missing?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to other things, that I have chosen not to fight you on even though I know I'm right.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The accusations are red herrings, plain and simple. Don't get sucked in. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

'Tis amusing to return to this article a month later and STILL see the SAME things being fought over, mostly from the IP. Can someone explain to me why this article hasn't been fully protected? (Rhetorical question, by the way) It just seems to me that would be the easiest thing to see done to this article until there are actually things from this young man's NFL career to insert in the article that might actually back up some of the blatant crystal ball statements that the IP (who apparently believes that the whole world is against him in some kind of conspiracy theory) seems to be the most upset over removal of such. Yeesh! Winger84 (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not likely it'll be fully-protected because of a good-faith content dispute between two users. That would at least quell the fighting.. but they'd probably spill over to some other article to resume it, my guess is. There are two admins, Pats1 and Wknight94, that have been paying attention to this for the better part of.. well, pretty much since my high school AP tests back in May it seems. If they felt there was need for it to be fully-protected, one of them would've taken that route already. Ksy92003 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Dispute between two users?
2. Nice subtle way to let everyone know you took AP classes. We're all really impressed.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh.. my scores on those tests aren't anything to be impressed with.. actually, the 3 I got on my AP Calculus is kinda good. Got a 1 on the other.. Ksy92003 (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Full protection is absolutely not the answer here. As for the dispute, it isn't between two editors. It's more like the IP vs. the rest of the free world. The IP feels the world is bullying him. Hopefully something tangible will come out of the latest AN/I thread by the IP (that's what, 8 AN/I threads started by him? I've lost count). Enigma ^message 04:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Demand for clear demonstration of Notability from IP editor.

IP editor: Post here a clear, concise explanation of what about this quote makes it notable. Use citations and sources as needed, include links to the full story and any relevant secondary press coverage abotu reactions to his commments. ThuranX (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I will do my best. (1) It was carried in USA Today. As a USA today reader I have never seen this conventioned covered by the paper. (3) Since the convention could have had a number of athletes, thet chose a guy who has never played in the nFL, a rookie. It seems, maybe, that the rookie raised the level of the convention to be covered in a new way, not done before. Is this the be-all and end-all? No. It it the same as winning a Super Bowl? No. It is as noteworthy as who is dad is, though. It is as noteworthy as thing found in other NFL articles. On a scale of WP:N from 1-10 this is a 3 or so. Things that are not noteworthy would be a "zero"

I do appreciate the chance to state the WP:N and I thank you. I think this is fair and part of WP:CONSENSUS72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people that would agree that Long giving a speech on trainers is equally as notable as Long, the standout college defensive end and No. 3 overall pick, is the son of a Hall of Fame defense end and still-current public figure. I think this is a perfect example of how the IP user's ideas of notability differ from almost everyone else here. That being the case, it seems to be it is the one in the minority (or one that is the minority) is the one that needs to alter his ideas of what is notable on Wikipedia.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is, taken in a vacuum, it meets WP:N. If you disagree, fine. But on what basis do you disagee? I mean is it the size of the convention? Is it that it was trainers? Is it that Long himself is not well-known enough? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the entire thing. A speech on such a topic is not relevant to Chris Long's career. In 10 years (or today, really) no one will care that Long once gave this speech. It doesn't matter now and it won't think about it later. It did not impact his life significantly or the the lives of anyone else. Chris Long is the son of a Hall of Famer player, an awesome former college football player and a top NFL draft pick. That's why he has an article here. This speech has nothing to do with anything, and it has nothing to do with Long's career.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I don't get where these things come from. "impact his life" or "anyone else's". These are things that seem to be a bit arbitrary, however, the wikie guidleins WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiable and WP:BOLD, WP:IAR all are a bit more clear and I have been using those guidlines. If the speech is WP:N and meets the other standards then why does it have to "impact his life significantly or the the lives of anyone else"? Anyway, how would you know that information if it were true? I don't know that information to be true, do you?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you'll never hear about it again. Doesn't the fact that this is the only place it would remain in view to be read (if your edit stood) prove that it's not notable? Seriously, think about that. If that information is not here, it will essentially never see the light of day again. Why? Because people don't care.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) (Repeating what I said numerous times above...) Consensus is basically that the content is to WP:INDISCRIMINATE to bother including here. He's probably been to dozens of press conferences and events like this. The only thing that sets this one apart is what? A USA Today reporter happened to be there and his story is accessible via the web and Google? Seems awfully flimsy. Therefore, this press conference is no more notable than any of his other appearances so, by your flawed logic, they should all be mentioned in this article! Doesn't that sound silly? Be honest. Just because you found an article with his name in it doesn't mean you should add a line here about it. We're not Boredom-opedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Best quote ever. Will live on on my user page.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

See chart below. The thing is, you are applying a different standard to this (and me) than to otehr articles. This, according to the report, was a speech on a topic. Why was the reporter there? I don't know. Were they there because of who was speaking? Did it make the paper because of that? All that lends to WP:N rather than against it. This was not an autogrpah signing or some such thing, it was a speech to a convention. I am saying this is a 3 on the scale of 10. You are saying it is zero. I 100% honeslty think my case is stronger for it being notable than yours is for non-notable. If it had not been covered by USA Today or if USA Today covered it every year then maybe you'd have a point, but I contend that this is unique. Like I said I have never seen that convention covered before, why now? If you have to ask that quesdtion it is notable, IMO/72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability comes from how much people care about something. What makes the NFL notable is that people watch it, as opposed to, say, Jim and Dave's Super-Fun Time Backyard Flag Football League just south of Little Rock. If no one went to see movies, they would not be notable enough for inclusion here. (Well really, they wouldn't be made, bu you get the point.) Ask yourself - will anyone care that Long gave this speech a year from now? Five year from now? 10 years? How about today. The correct answer is no, thus making it not notable.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris, with repsect, notability is not "how much people care about something". It is this:

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.

These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability is that by definition. If no one cares, something cannot be notable.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you have your view, I have mine. We disagree. I like wiki's definition. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Mine doesn't disagree with wiki's definition, it just simplifies things to the the bare minimum. But whatever, this mini-argument is irrelevant. If you want to keep arguing that something is notable when no one agrees or cares, be my guest. I'm content to just let things unfold as they will right now, since you'll never be able to build a consensus. I can guarantee you now just based on common sense, you will never be able to get this to stay in the article permanently.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I was responding to a demand that I make the case that it is WP:N. Look at the title of this thread. In that spirit I did. I understand you and Wknight disagree. I made my points and supported them and then responeded to your points. I didn't find the verbiage you used in the wiki guidelines. So, we disagree on what is common sense and what is notable. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

IP, your case, essentially, is based on one point ,that it was published in a major newspaper, and thus, MUST be notable for that reason. Your #2, that you'd never seen such an article before, is irrelevant, as it's personal experience. As for your #3, that's your personal SYNTH/SPECULATION... and thus not a valid reason. So we'er left with, it got published. Ok, we can look at that. Well, there's a line or two about it. Is it the focus? not really. Even if so, is the convention he spoke at particularly notable? I don't see it wikilinked, so probably not that big a deal, a small professional association within a larger group. Was there other major coverage of it? were there Op-Eds written? Did he issue any statement about his appearance? beyond the obvious agreement that comes from preaching to the choir, as Long did, were there consequences to his speech (Real ones, not his paycheck or that he ran five minutes long and some guys missed their lunch dates)? The answer to all of this seems to be no. As such, adding it would represent nothing better than Long's off-season itinerary for a single day. And that, as suggested above, would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. ThuranX (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, not really. I didn't make the "If-then" arguement as you suggest. However, just because somehting is not wikilinked does not, on it's face, make it non-notable. There was other media coverage of the event. When you say "major coverage" you need to rememebr this is sports, not news. So, that is a relative term. USA Today was the largest but more than one paper covered it. So it may "be a big deal". Your speculation that it is not "a big deal" is irrelevent and may be your own version of personal synth. (Fair is fair) As far as what was reported the convention and the speaker were prominatley featured. It was not a "line or two". If one reads the article you can see it was something he agreed with and was more than just a run-in-the-mill speech. I think setting up a standard on this article that is not adhered to on other NFL project articles is dangerous and discourages participation. Wikie is open to all and good-faith edits are important to the project. So, while I repsect your opinion, it is as valid as mine is, this does not meet the standard of WP:INDISCRIMINATE when you use the definitions of wiki. I do concede that it is not a "10" on a scale of 10, but it is not a "zero" either. When taken together with WP:N, WP:IAR; WP:Bold; and WP:verifiable the sentance meets the wiki standards for inclusion. Most of the objections call it "irellevant" because "people won't care". "nothing better than Long's off-season itinerary for a single day" is a different issue. Were that the case the more of his activites would be published in various places. This was the exception, it seems, not the rule. As the exception it passes the WP:N test. Your arguement would hold if a lot of Long's "itinerary" were the subject of articles. But, there is no evidence for that. In fact quite the opposite. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

'The exception which proves the rule' my favorite canard... You don't seem to be aware... 'The exception proves the rule false'. Claiming yours is that one exception means either the entire rule is broken, or your idea is wrong. Occam's razor suggests taht it's your problem, not the rule's fault. As for 'more than just a run-in-the-mill speech', prove that this was somehow more valid that he rest of his body of public speaking. And by a significant, notable margin, like the state of the union relative to every little bad joke the presidents make while running between events or up to Air Force One. You speak of 'most of the objections'. Not mine. Mine clearly spoke to policy. The fact is that there's consensus based in policy against inclusion, and your arguments all come down to 'I like Chris Long and I like my edit because I think it's notable no matter what you say, so it has to go in'.

Finally, no one is establishing a separate standard for this article, either. your BAD faith behavior and wikilawyering, are signs of seriously tendentious editing. You refuse to see consensus, asserting it is just a conspiracy of numbers. I will be asking for a block, again, in the AN/I thread. ThuranX (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I really think this kind of hostility is uncalled for. When you say "I am not aware" and the like you are really going too far. I am very aware of logical arguements. I think for this to be civil you need to be able to see both sides of the issue and to be fair. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You could clear this up by answering the questions that you keep dodging, about why this particular stuff you're trying to insert is notable, or special, or unique. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Fair"? meaning aggree with your or keep hearing you go on and on until we all give up, right? ThuranX (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Chris Long (American football) → Chris Long – WP:Primary topic. Page views: Football player: 4046, Director: 538. Marcus Qwertyus 05:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The two disambiguation pages, Chris Long and Christopher Long might profitably be merged. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support move of Chris Long (American football) → Chris Long, with merge of the two disambiguation pages, and a hatnote on this article leading to the disambiguation page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support looking closer the numbers are even more lopsided during football season where the difference is over 10000.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.