User:Giants27/My AFD work

Delete

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 delete. Tone 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Antwain Easterling

He was notable at the time of his arrest but since then hasn't been heard of. Iamawesome800 22:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Notability does not expire. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Wasn't notable at the time of his arrest and still isn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete What Phil said. Plutonium27 (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. Being arrested for a sex crime does not make a person notable. LK (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not just because you are awesome, but because notability is insufficient. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. 1) His sporting achievements don't meet WP:ATHLETE 2) The majority of the article is about his arrest which leads to WP:UNDUE weight. 3) People being arrested for a sex crime is unfortunately too common; it doesn't make him notable unless it has far reaching consequences like changes in the law or if the crime was exceptionally cruel (Marc Dutroux, Yorkshire Ripper) and the person involved convincted. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
delete WP:NOTNEWS. I'd be willing to maybe extend that slightly if either his athletics or his arrest were enough such that he'd be notable but for NOTNEWS but there's close to zero coverage of both. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:34, 9 January 2009 (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.

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Arline

He did not show up for the Chargers 2007 training camp, and since then has not been on a team, a practice squad or anything. Iamawesome800 00:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep Appears Arline is on the {{San Diego Chargers roster}}. He was also notable enough to create an article initially. Notability is not temporary, per WP:N#TEMP. — X96lee15 (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Based on WP:ATHLETE you actually have to play professionally. It is not our place to predict that he may some day actually play. Since he hasn't played professionally yet, merely being on a roster does not appear sufficient for notability. No other establishments of notability in the article that I could see either. -Verdatum (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete - First voter (keep) is incorrect. Article should never have been created in the first place and Arline has never been notable. He was a non-notable college player that signed with San Diego as an undrafted free agent and never showed up to camp nearly two years ago. He's only on the Chargers' roster because, since he signed a contract, he's under their control if he were to ever pursue an NFL career. But it appears he has decided not to and to date has never done anything at the professional level to gain notability here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. The threshold for inclusion for athletes is extremely low, considering, and this guy doesn't reach that. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Calton this surely fails WP:ATHLETE -- maybe later! JBsupreme (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Did some searching, and unable to find any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. --Delirium (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2009 (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.

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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Burnett

Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOTABILITY. Iamawesome800 Talk 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

*Keep: plays (or played) for a fully professional team, exactly what WP:ATHLETE requires. Ironholds (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Delete per comments below. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete unless it can be demonstrated that he actually played. Punkmorten (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Never played for the two teams he signed with, the Minnesota Vikings (signed 5/3/2007, waived 6/20/2007) or the Saskatchewan Roughriders (signed 4/1/2008, released 6/1/2008). Baileypalblue (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Notability. Timneu22 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Notability guidelines require that he play, not just be signed. Edward321 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete (strange for me, yes) not because of notability or athlete, but because of lack of sources cited. I'd be very much open to changing my position should the article be improved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Per multiple delete reasons I added {{Rescue}} as I don't know enough about him to research nor do I feel like doing it :-).--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rescue tags aren't to be used as a safety-net. In situations like this where it is obvious all the sourcing in the world won't help it is a bit pointless. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (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.

Template:RenegadesQB

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete - Nabla (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:RenegadesQB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The team is defunct and there is no need to still have this here as it is only used on one page. Giants27 ^T/C 02:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete -- If the template had more entries, then I would have voted to keep, but 2 QBs can be covered in respective team pages.--Best, ₮RU CӨ 19:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete - no need for a template to link only two articles. Robofish (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2009 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 delete. slakr^\ talk / 07:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Eric Broberg

No reliable sources to make this person notable per WP:ATHLETE, also sounds like it's reading as a crystal ball. Giants27 ^T/C 20:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Rookie Ball League appears to be a training league and certainly not a fully professional sport. Unless I have misunderstood this, delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete "Rookie ball" may be a professional league, but it is about as low a class as you can get to still be called "professional". Nowhere near the "top level" or "medium level". We're talking sub-basement. Technically it passes WP:ATHLETE as a "professional", but common sense should say he does not. DarkAudit (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete Rookie leagues are not sufficiently notable as the sole basis of inclusion for a baseball player. Jouer au Fat (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment That account only has 5 edits to date. However I have the feeling it's a former user because its second edit came to its monobook page which I didn't find till at least my 1,000th edit.--Giants27 ^T/C 23:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  - Comment It is indeed true. I have exercised WP:RTV. Jouer au Fat (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete One season in the Gulf Coast League and no 3rd sourse coverage does not meet the standard agreed upon for inclusion of minor league players. Hardnfast (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Detroit Tigers minor league players. Seems like a good candidate for that article. I'm not sure if I agree with the principle behind "minor league players" articles, but it currently exists, so might as well use it. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree This too deep into the minors to be worth consideration for merge. I'd even consider looking at the "X minor leauge players" articles for culling. These guys are "professionals" in the technical sense, but the general feeling is that they aren't notable enough until they get to at minimum AAA level. DarkAudit (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete, maybe recreated once he gets to the majors or is on the major league roster (40 man roster) but right now, he's at the lowest level possible.User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 20:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete Too early to merge to the team lists and not notable on his own. Spanneraol (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Does not meet [[WP:ATHLETE]. The subject has never played in a major league baseball game. Untick (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Detroit Tigers minor league players (assuming this article survives its own AfD, which is presently underway). caknuck _° remains gainfully employed 17:52, 22 March 2009 (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.

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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Antonio DeJesus

Minor leaguer who doesn't pass WP:ATH or WP:N. Giants27 ^T/C 02:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete I struck out in my gnews/google search for WP:RS that would show notability for this player. If someone has better luck than I, I'll reconsider my !vote, but at this time I'm not seeing notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable player--Yankees10 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable player; career stats (1 HR, 0.261 BA, 19 SB in 146 games) indicate he has little chance of making in in MLB at this time. Mandermagic (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2009 (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.

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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Jared Hyatt (baseball)

Minor leaguers are not notable unless they're A) a top prospect or B) played in the majors, thus doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 ^T/C 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Or they could pass the notability guidelines in some other way, but this guy clearly doesn't. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable player--Yankees10 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Frisco_RoughRiders#2009_roster; fails WP:ATHLETE but mentioned there and rds are cheap. JJL (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. I've struck out in finding RS to show notability on this guy. Selected in the 33rd round doesn't give me a lot of hope for sources showing up.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete does not meet requirements for WP:ATHLETE, I tried to find something noteworthy out there and just couldnt come up with anything! Mandermagic (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Texas Rangers minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2009 (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.

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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Josh Johnson (infielder)

Non-notable minor leaguer who hasn't played past Single-A, definetely doesn't clear the WP:ATHLETE guideline. Giants27 ^T/C 00:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ No evidence of coverage that would make him notable under the general guidelines. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect per JJL's point: nothing wrong with mentioning him and having a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 00:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 00:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable player--Yankees10 00:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Northwest Arkansas Naturals; fails WP:ATHLETE but mentioned there and rds are cheap. JJL (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. This is a frustrating one, because I could well be missing RS out there showing notability. Any signal is completely swamped by the Marlins pitcher of the same name.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, nn baseball player. That and "redirects are cheap" is a silly argument. Wizardman 19:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment it's plausible that someone might want to search for him, and if he does ever make it to the majors this preserves the biographical data already there. JJL (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete nothing significant about this player that warrants a Wiki page; minor league numbers are not great and a callup does not seem eminent. Mandermagic (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Kansas City Royals minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2009 (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.

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

John Halman

Undrafted free agent who does not pass WP:ATHLETE. Good faith search has only recent news and this article about his recent signing doesn't mention anything like awards that warrant notability. Being released today doesn't help his cause. Giants27 ^T/C 20:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. –Giants27 ^T/C 20:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. –Giants27 ^T/C 20:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I've been as guilty as anyone of creating too many articles of non-notable athletes on the cusp of a pro career. That's why I'm trying to avoid that and get others to do the same. This player simply doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE yet.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Until he plays a pro game or earns some notable coverage, he fails WP:ATHLETE, and his chances of doing so are greatly diminished by his being released and undrafted. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Only media coverage I found is in Pensacola News Journal and Scout.com; first is about him getting signed as a UFA, second is about him potentially being drafted. I don't think this alone qualifies as significant coverage, and thus fails WP:BIO (unless someone else can provide more). He also seems to fail the additional criteria of WP:ATHLETE: (1) I don't believe he has played professionally (he tried out for the CFL before college [1], but does not appear to have played), and (2) did not play at the highest amateur level of American football, which is Division I FBS (Concordia is NAIA). Strikehold (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2009 (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.

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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Casey Tyler

An undrafted player from a division II college (Portland State University) has been with two teams and has yet to make either which fails him for WP:ATHLETE and the only sources I can find specifically about him is the story about his release from the Patriots last year and the Cowboys this year. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 00:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete fails the relevant notability standard. JJL (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 01:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 01:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. No significant coverage in reliable sources. لenna vecia 17:53, 2 June 2009 (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.

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Washington (American football)

Went undrafted in this years draft, no substanial coverage and was recently released. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete unless/until he ever appears in a regular season pro game. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete Although he would be a 27-year old rookie (and at the same time, a 4 year U.S. Navy veteran) if he makes it into an NFL game, there's no guarantee that his contract with the Bills will lead to playing at the highest level of professional competition, which is an automatic bye. FOr now, not enough to show notability. Mandsford (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Weak Delete Looks to be a backup/ST kind of guy in college and cant find much notability from independent sources Corpx (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Weak Delete - As of now does not appear to have established notability. Rlendog (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2009 (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.

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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Liam O'Hagan

No significant coverage, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 (c|s) 01:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete No indication of notability sufficient to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete Doesnt meet guidelines--Yankees10 16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Again, this is a professional league that hasn't even played a single down yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2009 (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.

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-closing as delete after discussion with closer. Wizardman 16:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Walter Mendenhall

Non-notable football player, no substantial coverage except for reports about his transfer from a bigger school to a smaller school, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 (c|s) 01:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete Doesnt meet guidelines.--Yankees10 16:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep A search of Newsbank and google shows extensive non-trivial coverage of this individual in the mainstream media, including major papers like the Chicago Tribune. Even if he never plays a game in the NFL, such substantial media coverage of his collegiate football career satisfied general notability requirements. There are numberous feature articles focusing specifically on Mendenhall. Examples include the following: (1) "Brotherly love first - Mendenhall chosen Big Ten MVP but prefers watching brother Walter take a backfield turn," Chicago Tribune, December 7, 2007,[2] (2) "Two-getherness - How a family of 4 decided to stay as 1, relocating to Champaign this summer because 'this was going to be the year'," Chicago Tribune, October 17, 2007,[3] (3) "Ex-Redbirds Mendenhall, Nelson eye late rounds," The Pantagraph, (Bloomington, IL), April 24, 2009,[4] (4) "ISU's Mendenhall, Nelson sign free agent deals," The Pantagraph (Bloomington, IL), April 27, 2009,[5] (6) "Walter Mendenhall hopes for rebirth after leaving Illini for ISU," State Journal-Register, Aug 05, 2008,[6] and (7) "Walter Mendenhall anxious for 'change of scenery' with ISU," The Pantagraph, June 26, 2008,[7]. Cbl62 (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep article needs improvement, but the obvious sources listed here show notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2009 (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.

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 delete. WP:ATH is the relevant criteria here, if this is met later, the article can be brought back. Tone 13:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Khalil Jones

Fails WP:GNG because after a good faith search all I could find are trivial mentions and a few feature stories but all by Scout.com's team sections which will cover really anything about their school. Giants27 (c|s) 15:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment: A search of the Newsbank database turns up extensive hits (>100) in articles about Miami Hurricanes football from 2004-2008 and also some articles referring to his signing with and waiver by the Atlanta Falcons in 2009. I don't have access to The Miami Herald archives, but the following two articles (based on the first paragraph of each) appear to focus on Jones: (1) "Can't catch on yet," Miami Herald, 9/15/08, (2) "Receiver Heading TO UM," Miami Herald, 2/2/04 (feature on Jones signing with UM). There are also several articles about Jones being knocked unconscious and hospitalized after a brawl following the 2005 Peach Bowl, e.g., "Miami player leaves hospital after fight Joke gone wrong sparks Peach Bowl brawl," Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 1, 2006; "Postgame scuffle mars win," American Press (Lake Charles, LA), December 31, 2005. Before casting my vote to keep or delete, I'd like to do some more checking, and hear what others find. Cbl62 (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Google News search turns up around 200+ references. Some trivial, some specifically about the subject. WP:ATHLETE is a guideline and not policy, and is inclusionary not exclusionary. Subject matter meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO quite handily, regardless of not having actually played a down of professional football.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Career at Miami: 13 receptions for 135 yards. Senior year at Miami: 5 receptions for 39 yards - in the last nine games he had a total of 2 receptions for 18 yards against bottom-dwellers NC State.[8] He does not meet notability guidelines at WP:BIO (of which WP:ATHLETE is a part of) or WP:GNG (i.e multiple websites listing barely more than what I've listed above does not constitute "significant coverage"). Location (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete - fails both WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't "competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and WP:GNG (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). GiantSnowman 13:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Question Did you search google news? What about those references are not adequate?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I searched Google News and found little more than brief notes regarding injury reports and roster changes, mostly from the Miami Hurricanes website and a few local papers. The most interesting thing I can find is that he got knocked out in a brawl after the 2005 Peach Bowl, which at best would warrant a redirect. Did you have something more substantial? Location (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete per article noting he's a football player who was not drafted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep Subject matter meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO crit. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

- Strong Keep He meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO--Zta ♠talk♠ August 8 2009 ♠Nastia ♥

~~Keep~~ Google News search turns up around 200+ references. WP:ATHLETE is a guideline and not policy, and is inclusionary not exclusionary. This article matter meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO regardless of not having actually played a down of professional football--Zta ♠talk♠ August 8 2009 ♠Nastia ♠
- Please only vote once. And that's common knowledge that WP:ATH is a guideline, thus it wasn't mentioned. Google news hits also do not show notability, "significant coverage" does, i.e. articles fully about the subject not just passing mentions.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable college player who had a brief camp stint with an NFL club and may never be heard from again. As it stands, he's not notable.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Weak delete - Fails WP:ATH as he never played a game at the professional level. If reliable sources over a span of time (see WP:NTEMP) can be provided, article should be kept. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 09:15, 9 August 2009 (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.

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Four Norsemen of the Apocalypse

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

Search results turn up no significant coverage, thus failing it for WP:GNG. Giants27 (c|s) 23:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 23:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Blogs are not good sources. Google search reveals this term is applied indiscriminately to a lot of people in Minnesota, including other Vikings teammates. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Random nicknames from fans are not worthy of their own wiki articles.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete The cites are to some fan blogs? Good night. No citations to the media in Minnesota, let alone the national media. Just because some bloggers thought that "Four Norsemen of the Apocalypse" would be a cool name for the Vikings' front four, there's no sign that anyone else thinks that they compare to the Four Horsemen of Notre Dame, the Bible, or the Purple People Eaters for that matter. Not a terribly original thought on the part of the blogger anyway, but that's the type of honorific that goes to a dynasty type team. Mandsford (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep - plenty of sources exist - see these news sources. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the results that came up do not support the claims made in the article. As I noted above, all these results do is demonstrate that this phrase exists and is applied to all kinds of people.Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the results confirm what we suspected-- that this term has not been used in the media to describe the current Minnesota Vikings front line. In fact, the last use-- in 2001-- was even before Kevin Williams made the Vikings, and the other three came later. Mandsford (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice to a future article that uses WP:Reliable sources that directly discuss the use of the term. It does seem to be used indiscriminately to a lot of people in Minnesota. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. -Yupik (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2009 (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.

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jaison Williams

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

Fails WP:ATH as he has never played in a game, went undrafted and a good faith search turns up no "significant coverage" of him. Giants27 (c|s) 19:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 (c|s) 20:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 (c|s) 20:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep - Normally I'd say delete, but as one of the most prolific receivers in the history of a Pac-10 program, I think his college career might make him just notable enough for inclusion. Just my two cents, but I could see it either way.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete. It's not clear that he has made the Redskins squad and even the creator of the article inserted "No notable achievements" under "Career highlights and awards". On the other hand, he appears to have posted some impressive stats at Oregon. I, too, could see it either way. Location (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The "No notable achievements" thing should not be used in this argument. It's the infobox standard when a player doesn't have Pro Bowls, Super Bowl rings, etc. It doesn't mean he's not notable here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that "No notable achievements" line is a BLP infraction if it's not sourced, frankly. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "no notable achievements" is stupid. The template should be changed. Strikehold (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak Delete If he is one of the most prolific receivers in the history of a PAC-10 team, then that should be included in the article. As it stands, the article appears to fail the standard otherwise. Probably a better idea would be to expand the article so that it includes his Oregon information. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - but the fact it's not currently in the article has nothing to do with whether or not Williams as subject is notable.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment If you look at the C. J. Bacher afd, specifically Paul McDonald's comment, this sounds like the same argument which I agree with.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete. I don't see sufficient reliable sources to create a reasonable V, NPOV, NOR, BLP article at this time but should sources be provided, then such an article would be welcome. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete - I looked through Google News (seems there was a basketball player with the same name, but for ""Jaison Williams" Oregon football" there are 461 hits), but didn't find much that I think of as "significant coverage" per WP:BIO. If that is found and provided, I am open to changing my vote. As it stands, being a school-record holder, much less simply "one of the most prolific receivers" at a school, does not meet notability in itself. As an aside, these two-line stub articles have practically no merit and virtually no chance of expansion unless the guy becomes a star. Of course, that isn't directly related to notability, but see WP:HEY. Strikehold (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2009 (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.

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ian England

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Also, no reliable sources are provided and as an actor, his only credit is as a dead person in Numbers. Which, IMO is not that notable. Giants 27(c|s) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete for failing to meet WP:BIO. GregorB (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Not particularly notable, unreferenced BLP, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:27, 23 October 2009 (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.

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 delete. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ju-Ju Clayton

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

Clayton is the backup quarterback for Virginia Tech and the only source found is entitled, "Is Virginia Tech Quarterback Ju-Ju Clayton almost famous? Not yet". Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Giants 27(c|s) 18:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC) *Keep As Creater of the article. Only sources found? What about the other three, there is also this and numerous other Articles with his name on them.--SKATER ^Speak. 18:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)**Yes his name is in that one, however how is that notable? Clayton tries to make first pass a good one, sounds like someone who hasn't accomplished anything in their college career. While the other sources on the article, are VT bios and game notes, which are not third-party sources.--Giants 27(c|s) 18:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. I have a very low threshold is for college football player notability, but this one seems to scream out, "I'm not notable -- at least not yet." The guy is a backup quarterback, and the one mainstream third-party media article that is cited about him is titled: "Is Virginia Tech quarterback Ju-Ju Clayton almost famous? Not yet." So even the source cited says he's not yet even almost famous. He may be notable once he establishes himself as a college player, and should that happen, the article can be re-created without prejudice. But he doesn't appear to have established notability yet. Cbl62 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete Actually after thinking about it for a while and going on an hour search for sources, I have to agree he's not notable yet...Hell give it a year or two when he's the starter.

By the way Giants...This Nomination wouldn't have anything to do with the Giants getting killed the Saints would it ;), nah jk...--SKATER ^Speak. 23:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

:P--Giants 27(c|s) 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Only a backup, no way notable yet.--Yankees10 23:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Cbl62 (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:ATH. Assuming he starts in the future (but college football is far from certain) he'd likely pass WP:ATH then, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:43, 28 October 2009 (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.

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 delete. Brandon (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Terrance Stringer

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH as he's never played professionally. Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment While I don't understand American Football, which appears to me to be more about statistics than playing a game, I can understand that the subject of this article does not seem to have made it into the world of professional play. As I understand the rules of notability here, this would seem to preclude him being suitable for having an article. Just out of curiosity, how do they know he made a 121 yard whatever it was? In the javelin and discus, they have people with tape measures. Surely not on a football field... Peridon (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's common for people to record over a 100 yards so it obviously doesn't make you notable, but to answer you're question the field has yard lines which allows the person who compiles the stats to determine the yardage.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ta. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:ATH and is not notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE. Article explicitly states he was an offseason/practice squad member only during the only season he was on an NFL team roster. Official NFL player directory indicates that he exists ([9]), but has no statistics. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete since he didn't actually play, although this guy was very similar and his article was kept after the deletion discussion because there were some articles in the local newspaper about him. I'm sure similar articles about Terrance Stringer could be found, but I still say it wouldn't pass notability. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:48, 22 November 2009 (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.

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Quentin Scott

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

Fails WP:ATH as he's never played professionally and WP:GNG per this search. Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:ATH as he's never played a match, as opposed to being a mere squad member, in the NFL. Every other sport wikiproject adheres to the sensible "you must play a match" rule. NFL should be no different. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete I'm finding lots of articles on Scott Peterson and San Quentin, but very, very little on "Quentin Scott".--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2010 (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.

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 delete. Sandstein 06:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarence Denmark

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

Denmark fails WP:ATH and after a good faith search on google news also fails WP:GNG. He has yet to appear professionally and played at a lower level college team. Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete some small college football players are notable, this one is not. Well, not yet anyway--not for our purposes. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
~~Weak Keep~~ Switch to Weak Delete. This is a close case, but I lean slightly toward ~~keeping~~ deleting. During the 2009 season, Denmark had 54 receptions for 987 yards and 11 touchdowns -- pretty impressive numbers. See this source. He's signed with an NFL team and is only the 3rd player in the history of his school to accomplish that feat. He played for a small university (Arkansas-Monticello) where media coverage is quite limited. Despite the lack of media coverage on UAM's football program, a search of Google News and NewsBank reveals several articles focusing on Denmark as the principal subject of the story. Examples of news coverage focusing on Denmark include: (1) Lee's Denmark shines at jamboree, The Florida Times-Union, May 16, 2003, (2) Ponte Vedra trainer helping Jaguar rookie realize his dream, Ponte Vedra Recorder, August 28, 2009, (3) Denmark Contributes to QB's Success, Pine Bluff Commercial, September 9, 2008. (4) Former UAM Wide Receiver Denmark Signs with Jaguars, Pine Bluff Commercial, August 5, 2009, (5) Lee High graduate Denmark re-signs with Jaguars, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (link to article as it appeared in The Florida Times-Union), January 6, 2010, (6) Jaguars cut four Jacksonville native Denmark among rookies to be let go, The Florida Times-Union, September 2, 2009. Cbl62 (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2010 (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.

Deleted, Later Redirected

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 delete. It appears to be in the grey area (consensus-wise) about if the Minnesota Twins league he is part of is a professional league (and thus qualifying Lehmann under WP:ATHLETE). However, as discussed below, there are no reliable sources that myself or other users can find for this player, and because of this, no general notability can be established. ~fl 05:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Lehmann

Only claim to fame is two low level minor league all-star appearances far from notable. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete or merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. A quick gsearch for Daniel Lehmann and for Danny Lehmann turned up nothing more than passing mentions. Just 13 games at AA so far, which doesn't meet my standard for "fully professional". As for the Single-A all-star appearance, assuming there's as many players on an all-star roster as the regular rosters, each player in the FSL has about a 1 in 6 chance of making the all-star team -- an honor, for sure, but not enough to give notability in the absence of in-depth coverage.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete until he plays at MLB level. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep He's an All-Star minor leaguer who spent this past spring with the Twins. He'll be in the majors in no time.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Contrary to what was said in the other AfD, the Miracle is not a professional team . They are a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The opinions of people who say "The Miracle is not a professional team" should not count. To make a comment like that, he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2009 (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.

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 delete. Per extended rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Lehmann and the lack of in-depth coverage. ~fl 06:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Alex Burnett

All-Star in 2007 but appears to be non-notable. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 18:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete or merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Gsearch not turning up notability through in-depth coverage; has just been promoted to AA two days ago, which is not "fully professional" in my book. All-star appearance is an honor, for sure, but it looks like any given Midwest League player has a 1 in 8 chance of making the team.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Save - He was an All-Star last season and pitched 6 innings of shutout baseball in the second game of the playoffs for the Miracle. He's a great pitcher who will be in the majors shortly. He was already up for deletion once and the decision was save.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Previous Afd = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players. Having read the close, I'm a bit confused. Wizardman specifically noted one to keep, one to delete, and didn't make a specific call on the rest. I'm not sure we can assume the call was to keep -- no consensus is equally possible. We might need to ask Wizardman for clarification. (Yet another reason why I dislike these mass noms.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A little more poking led me to more information. Wizardman actually closed this one as delete, and Johnny Spasm took it to DRV two days later. A number of commenters there, including the DRV closer, said they felt the close should have been no consensus, not delete. Calling the decision "save" is a bit of a stretch. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A year ago, I was new to Wikipedia, and wrote Wikipedia entries for the entire Miracle roster. The only articles that I argued for their restoration were the ones that MET the Notability guidelines. For that matter, I ever reccommended an article I wrote for deletion, Edward Ovalle. I've since made certain that every Miracle I've written an article for met notability guidelines. I know what I'm doing--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not question whether you knew what you were doing, just said that implying the previous AfD ended in "keep" for this player is a stretch.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it a stretch? If a trial ends in a hung jury, is the guy who didn't go to jail, and is walking the streets wrong for saying "I was found not guilty"? Bottom line is the consensus was to keep the articles. I put up no argument for the utility infielder or the other players who probably didn't deserve articles in the first place and weren't notable. The ones I argued in defense of were the ones who were truly notable. I've since made sure that I remained within the guidelines that were set as a result of that debate. For that matter, I waited until Cris Cates' second All-Star selection to write an article about him. I learned my lesson a year ago, and my track record in the past year shows that.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If the trial ends in a mistrial (which is really the better analogy here), the guy walking the streets because of it certainly wasn't found "not guilty".--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Previous afd failed because the mass nomination was a mess. The minor league player articles did not yet exist at the time. The current consensus is to merge these articles. Spanneraol (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Contrary to what was said in the other AfD, the Miracle is not a professional team . They are a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The opinions of people who say "The Miracle is not a professional team" should not count. He clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Minor-league players are professional athletes. They are paid a salary to play the sport and are employees of a ballclub. No opinion on this article (yet), just wanted to get that straight. Johnny, please remember to be civil in your comments. Matt Deres (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply While you're right in that they're athletes, it does not necessarily mean they're notable, which I'm sure you know.--Giants27 (t|c) 02:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Further the guideline at WPBB seems more applicable here. I haven't been able to find a decent third-party report on this player and the linked guideline suggests that minor league players are not inherently notable. Weak delete it is, for failing to meet notability. Matt Deres (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2009 (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.

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 delete. Per extended rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Lehmann, and fact the news sources about him seen to only look at him on the field (i.e. "Steedley won us the game"), the news sources aren't really about him, they're about the team he is involved in. ~fl 06:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Spencer Steedley

Non-notable low level minor leaguer, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 18:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete or merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. I've added a ref for a small award, but not seeing much notability out there.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Minor league All Star selections are made by minor league managers. If a guy makes it two years in a row, that should tell you something. Steedley will be in the majors shortly.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players per standard procedure. Spanneraol (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Contrary to what was said in the other AfD, the Miracle is not a professional team . They are a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The opinions of people who say "The Miracle is not a professional team" should not count.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor league teams are professional teams. They pay their players. The issue of the notability of the players is separate from that. But the team is certainly professional. Spanneraol (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2009 (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.

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 delete. The subject does not meet the inclusion guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Blair Erickson

Low level minor leaguer, non notable. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 18:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players per standard procedure. Spanneraol (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players. DRV restored as "no consensus".--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Contrary to what was said in the other AfD, the Miracle is not a professional team . They are a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The opinions of people who say "The Miracle is not a professional team" should not count. He clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My opinion counts as much as yours, whether you like it or not. They're not professional in the sense of WP:ATHLETE as I see it. It states "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Class A baseball isn't even the top level of minor league baseball, let alone professional baseball. Now you can dispute if they are "professional" or not. Yes, they get paid, so technically they are professional. But many of the players have outside jobs because they don't get paid very much, so I'd dispute the claim of being "fully professional" I happen to like the Miracle and attend several games a year, but I don't believe that a player that has not played in the major league passes WP:ATHLETE. I'd also ask that you be more civil and discuss the issue and not your opinion of my intelligence. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

While there certainly is debate about the notability of low-level minor league players, the Miracle most certainly are professional. All of Minor League Baseball is. Reso lute 04:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete. I've understood "fully-professional", in the context of WP:ATHLETE, to refer to major league. Whether that be NBA, NFL, NHL, MBL, whatever. Perhaps there needs to be some clarification added to the guideline. Regardless, from the article with it's current sourcing, I don't believe sufficient notability has been established. لenna vecia 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Although minor leagues are fully professional, the baseball guidelines have generally required minor leaguers to have played a full season of AAA or a minor league all star appearance or award. Although those guidelines may have evolved some, they always made sense to me. Rlendog (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. BRMo (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2009 (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.

Recreated, Deleted Again

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 delete. Anyone who wishes to request userification may contact me on my talk page. Cool3 (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

C. J. Bacher

Undrafted quarterback recently joined UFL New York but no substantial coverage], fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 (c|s) 01:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete No indication of notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete Doesnt meet guidelines--Yankees10 16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I can sometimes buy off on a guy who is on a pro team, but hasn't actually played. But in this case, the entire league hasn't played a down yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Delte. After searching both Newsbank and google, I find no sign of any non-trivial coverage of Bacher in the mainstream media. Cbl62 (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Userfy until notability is established RF23 (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Userfy guy's gotta have lots of college credits in the news somewhere, but at some point the burden has to be placed on the person who created the article to actually have some references.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2009 (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.

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Devin Frischknecht

Undrafted free agent who does not pass WP:ATHLETE. Good faith search has only recent news and this article about his recent signing shows no evidence of a great college career. Being released today does not help out his cause notability wise. Giants27 ^T/C 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. –Giants27 ^T/C 20:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. –Giants27 ^T/C 20:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I've been as guilty as anyone of creating too many articles of non-notable athletes on the cusp of a pro career. That's why I'm trying to avoid that and get others to do the same. This player simply doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE yet.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete (for now) no notability now, could easily be re-created if he's signed elsewhere RF23 (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete, since for now this fails WP:ATHLETE, especially now that he got released. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE, because he "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport" - for American football, that is Division I FBS. Also passes WP:BIO with plenty of significant media coverage. Feature articles: Devin Frischknecht likely to be key target for Cougars in Seattle Times, JC All-Americans to sign with WSU in Scout, Backup tight end steps up in Seattle Times, WSU tight ends carry mature label in The Spokesman-Review, Cougars can count on Frischknecht in The News Tribune, Tight end: WSU's position of strength in Scout, Cougars aim for versatile tight ends in The News Tribune, Washington State lands top junior college TE in The Olympian, Cougar TEs: Big expectations in Scout. Strikehold (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep per numerous feature articles cited by Strikehold. As noted in other discussions, playing a game in the NFL is an automatic ticket to notability, but a college football player can be notable without playing in the NFL if, as here, he has received significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream press. Frischknecht is borderline but has received sufficient coverage to establish notability under the general guidelines. Cbl62 (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - All college starters will receiver some amount of media coverage and mentions from the papers of the area. It does not make them particularly notable in the scheme of things. Also, WP:ATHLETE never intended for the "highest amateur level of a sport" to include college football. It's more for individual sports. There are thousands of D-I college football players that are not and will never be notable, that will never be considered by professional teams. Being a D-I college football players does not make one notable enough for inclusion here, and neither should the occasional mention in the local paper.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Using phrases like "Occasional mention in the local paper" is disingenuous at best. There is a world of difference between "mentions" and coverage like that shown above. The articles cited are full-length articles exclusively about the subject. They are also not simply "local papers". Scout.com receives millions of unique hits each month and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a daily circulation of 435,000 [10]. It is also disingenuous to state with surety what the "intent" of WP:ATHLETE is -- that statement is nothing more than your own interpretation. Interest by professional teams has zero bearing on an individual's notability. College football itself is more notable, by just about any measure, than most other sports, professional or otherwise (See: WP:CFBATHLETE for further information). Strikehold (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete He did nothing in college and most likely will do nothing in NFL--Yankees10 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

An opinion of whether he "did" anything, in college or otherwise, is pretty irrelevant, and is certainly not a valid rationale for deletion. Whether you expect him to do anything professionally is equally irrelevant, in no small part to WP:CRYSTAL. Playing in the NFL would guarantee notability under WP:ATHLETE, but it is no more required for a player to be notable than is WP:POLITICIAN. Strikehold (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Giants27: What is the rationale behind nominating this article for deletion, when you voted "keep" for Bear Pascoe? You said he "Played highest level of pro and amatuer football" -- that was a player who had not actually played professionally (he was a late-round draft pick), but played amateur football in Division I FBS. That is the same situation for this player. Strikehold (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

- Simple, I deem drafted players unconditionally notable and if undrafted and they didn't have a prolific college career or are not currently a member of a team (or otherwise non-notable) then I believe they should be deleted. Bear Pascoe was drafted and not only drafted but currently on a team.--Giants27 ^T/C 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to that opinion, but nominating an article or voting based on that goes against all the notability guidelines. The assertion that someone is notable when they are on a team, but if they get cut before playing a game makes them non-notable violates "Notability is not temporary". Having a "prolific college career" is a subjective measurement, and there's no reason that is better than using the general notability guidelines—which Frischknecht passes. Also, a player is not non-notable simply by, as you suggest, not being drafted or on a team, that violates WP:BIO, which clearly lays out the basic and additional criteria for personal notability—which, again, Frischknecht passes. Strikehold (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

But he was never notable not in college or his short pro stint, if he made the team or any team for that matter he would be notable and since we're not a crystal ball we can't assume he'll be notable at some point.--Giants27 ^T/C 01:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

He is notable through WP:GNG. Strikehold (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2009 (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.

Recreated, Improved

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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

2012 IIHF World Championship

WP:CRYSTAL, this article only goes as far as to say that it will occur in 2012 in Finland. Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep The event is notable and certain to take place. Information is limited now but will be added as it is annouced. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete Far too soon for these articles. Nothing can be said that is not already stated at List of IIHF World Championship medalists. Ample precedent for the deletion of tournaments this far into the future. Reso lute 06:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete all: As said above, it is too early for these articles. There isn't enough information available at the time to create a decent stub. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL specifically holds that however much a future event is scheduled, if "nothing can be said about [it] that is verifiable and not original research," it is not an appropriate article topic. Ravenswing 18:44, 10 February 2009 (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.

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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

2013 IIHF World Championship

WP:CRYSTAL, this article only goes as far as to say that this hockey tournament will happen in 2013 in Sweden. Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 20:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep The event is notable and certain to take place. Information is limited now but will be added as it is annouced. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete Far too soon for these articles. Nothing can be said that is not already stated at List of IIHF World Championship medalists. Ample precedent for the deletion of tournaments this far into the future. Reso lute 06:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete all: As said above, it is too early for these articles. There isn't enough information available at the time to create a decent stub. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL specifically holds that however much a future event is scheduled, if "nothing can be said about [it] that is verifiable and not original research," it is not an appropriate article topic. Ravenswing 11:01, 11 February 2009 (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.

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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

2014 IIHF World Championship

WP:CRYSTAL, 2014 hockey tournament little to no information on it until at least 2012, so delete. Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 20:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment This one is slightly different, but the bidding process could itself be notable. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- No more than any other tournament. Seriously though, five years into the future? Reso lute 06:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete Far too soon for these articles. Nothing can be said that is not already stated at List of IIHF World Championship medalists. Ample precedent for the deletion of tournaments this far into the future. Reso lute 06:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete all: As said above, it is too early for these articles. There isn't enough information available at the time to create a decent stub. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL specifically holds that however much a future event is scheduled, if "nothing can be said about [it] that is verifiable and not original research," it is not an appropriate article topic. Beyond that, "the bidding process could itself be notable?" That's sheer POV and speculation; either a subject already exists or it doesn't, either it is provably notable or it isn't. Finally, it isn't as if anyone gets a prize for being the first to create one of these articles. There'll be years in which to do so, when actual information comes to light. Ravenswing 18:47, 10 February 2009 (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.

No Consensus

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. I am taking the normal editorial action of redirecting this to Colorado Rockies minor league players in the hope that a merger will be completed, but this carries no more weight than any other edit. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dayton Buller

Non-notable minor leaguer who doesn't pass WP:ATH or WP:N. Giants27 ^T/C 02:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep Passes WP:ATHLETE by playing in a fully professional league, unlike stated on deletion tag. Also, there is enough sources on google by a quick search to write a stub classed article that passes WP:N and WP:V. Borgarde (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Whether he passes WP:ATHLETE is debatable, but a gnews search turns up a number of promising Fresno Bee articles including this one that should satisfy WP:N.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Colorado Rockies minor league players per usual consensus. Secret ^account 16:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable player--Yankees10 00:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep per sources found by Fabrictramp. Rklear (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete non notable player; and despite the Google news article found, I still do not believe there is enough to merit a Wiki page; poor minor league numbers indicate little chance of eventual callup. Mandermagic (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. The Fresno Bee article cited by Fabrictramp isn't sufficient to satisfy notability either, IMO. BRMo (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2009 (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.

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mesphin Forrester

Fails WP:ATHLETE, non-notable college career and went undrafted. Giants27 ^T/C 23:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. –Giants27 ^T/C 00:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. –Giants27 ^T/C 00:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Does not pass WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE. We all have to stop creating these articles so quickly.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE as he has "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport": in American football, that is Division I FBS. Good evidence for WP:BIO as well, with good amount of media coverage. Feature articles in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Herald, Rivals, Scout, Scout (2). Shorter but significant coverage in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (2), Seattle Times and Kitsap Sun. Strikehold (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Local coverage is to be expected of college athletes. He's still not a particularly notable one to this point and he certainly is a long shot to have a pro career.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no proscription against so-called "local" coverage in WP:GNG or WP:BIO. And the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seattle Times have circulations over 400,000 -- these aren't small-town newspapers [11]. Strikehold (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep per numerous feature articles cited by Strikehold. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is one of the leading papers in the Western United States. Whether he's a long-shot to make the NFL is irrelevant. As noted in prior discussions, playing a game in the NFL is an automatic ticket to notability, but a college football player can be notable without playing in the NFL if, as here, he has received significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream press. This is more than sufficient to establish notability under the general guidelines. Cbl62 (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - That's hardly what I'd call "significant coverage." Also, WP:ATHLETE is referring to individual sports and the Olympic Games, not college football when it talks about the "highest amateur level of a sport." D-I football is not included in that and never was meant to be.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple feature articles solely about the subject in publications with hundreds of thousands of readers is not "significant coverage"? And your interpretation of WP:ATHLETE is just that: an interpretation. You, not having been the sole author yourself, are not really in a position to state with surety what WP:ATHLETE "mean[s] to" include. It says nothing about applying exclusively to "individual sports" or the Olympics or excluding college football; to say as much is pure extrapolation (and arbitrary). Notwithstanding, with either interpretation, the existence of a professional level does not negate the notability of college football (see: WP:CFBATHLETE for further discussion). Strikehold (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable person--Yankees10 22:32, 5 May 2009 (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.

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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Vic Hall

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

Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG per this search. Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep Slow down on the mass college football noms. This guy is also clearly notable based on extensive non-trivial coverage in mainstream media, including The Washington Post. See, e.g., (1) Under Center and Overjoyed: In His Final Year at Virginia, Hall Gets His Chance to Focus on Quarterback, The Washington Post, (2) Cavs' Hall Starred at QB; Now He's on the Defensive, The Washington Post, (3) Opportunity knocks for UVa's Vic Hall: After four years at cornerback, Vic Hall returns to quarterback full time for the first time since his record-breaking prep career, The Roanoke Times, (4) Cavs shouldn't forget about Vic Hall, The Roanoke Times, (5) Hall caps brilliant career: Vic Hall concludes his high school football career at Gretna with a second state title and nearly 14,000 yards total offenses, The Roanoke Times, (6) Groh: Hall will start - at punt returner Augusta Free Press, (7) The Star of the Show, Daily Press - Newport News, Va., (8) Gretna to retire Vic Hall’s jersey, Go Dan River, (9) http://hamptonroads.com/2009/07/ball-halls-hands-battle-uva-qb-begins, The Virginian-Pilot, (10) Hall's new position? All over the place: Virginia's Vic Hall, The Free Lance Star, (11) Vic Hall: Doing it all, The Roanoke Times, (12) UVa’s Hall samples life on offense, The News & Advance, (13) Vic Hall makes splashy return to offensive unit, Richmond Times-Dispatch, (14) Blue skies for Hall: While the former Gretna star was known for being a QB in high school, he continues to show the Cavs his versatility, The Roanoke Times, (15) Chicago Bears sign former Gretna, UVa standout Vic Hall, The News & Advance, April 27, 2010, (16) HALL SHOWS UVA WHAT IT'S MISSED, The Roanoke Times, November 30, 2008, (17) Vic Hall: Doing it all: The versatile Gretna product approaches his final game at UVa, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, November 25, 2009, (18) Hall at QB surprises Hokies: The former Gretna quarterback moves from cornerback for Virginia to playmaker, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, November 30, 2008, (19) Hall moves over to defense Former prep QB star finding his niche with Cavs, The Winchester Star, August 31, 2007, (20) Multi-talented Hall ignores the pressure, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, August 16, 2008, (21) Hall sparks both offense, defense: Cavaliers against Hokies, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, November 30, 2008, (22) UVa's Hall samples life on offense, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, November 30, 2008, (23) Probe continues in UVa athlete's assault (concerns assault on Hall), Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, June 26, 2007, (24) Walking tall: Size doesn't slow UVa's Vic Hall, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, September 5, 2009, (25) Hall to be tested again, Richmond Times-Dispatch, December 19, 2007, (26) HALL'S FAME STRETCHES BEYOND GRETNA, The Roanoke Times, December 14, 2004, (27) Bruised hip limits Vic Hall's mobility, The Roanoke Times, September 13, 2009, (28) Hall tries to deflect attention, but he can't avoid spotlight, The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA), April 19, 2009, (29) Hall showing Cavs his versatility The cornerback does a little bit of everything for virginia, including scoring touchdowns, The Free Lance-Star (Fredericksburg, VA), October 3, 2007, (30) UVa's Vic Hall a do-it-all player for the Cavaliers, The News & Advance (Lynchburg, VA), July 26, 2009. Cbl62 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In this case I don't understand why three quarters of all citations in this article have to come from a source that's not independent of the subject. You seem to have access to those (particularly the offline ones), would it be possible for you to improve the article with them? --Pgallert (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply. Most of the offline sources referenced above are available through NewsBank. A summary of the article can be viewed for free, but access to the full article requires payment of a fee. I wish I had the time (and money) to improve every college football article. I spent hours last night researching this and other AfDs. I have also spent many hours in the past two weeks rescuing college football articles of living people that are completely unsourced. The immediate goal here was to determine whether this article should or should not be deleted. What I will do for now is to add the list of article citations to the article talk page in hopes that an interested Virginia fine will pick up the mantle and weave them into the article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep per Cbl62. Emily Jensen (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep great research CB, now let's integrate it in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawn Wow, 30 sources! I wish google news showed these because he's clearly notable. Hopefully, all will end up being added to the article itself. Cheers,--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2010 (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.

Keep

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. Discussion to merge should take place on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Cole Garner

Non-notable minor league player who has never played in the majors. Giants27 ^T/C 02:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep 30 second gsearch came up with plenty to pass WP:BIO. I've added links to two Rocky Mountain News articles about him, as well as a couple of other citations about him. That was only looking at the first page of google and google news hits. Anyone who digs deeper than the first page will surely find more to add.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Colorado Rockies minor league players per usual consensus, also try to merge all of gr rodriquez articles and show links to the consensus of them, he's creating hundreds. Secret ^account 16:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable player--Yankees10 00:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep At first I was inclined to delete, as most of the results are simply trivial mentions, but Fabrictramp's sources (the Rocky Mountain News) and a Denver Post article on him that I found [12] establishes notability per WP:N and WP:BIO. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep TonyBalloni took the words right out of my mouth. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:16, 14 April 2009 (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.

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Alex Mortensen

No significant coverage, fails WP:ATHLETE and notability doesn't transfer from generation to generation. Giants27 (c|s) 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep Looking at the link you provided, the first six of eight hits are all articles specifically about this guy. Passes WP:GNG. In fact, I would have been surprised if a quarterback at a major college program like Arkansas didn't pass general notability guidelines. Here are some articles: ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Scout, USA Today, ESPN, The Morning News, ESPN, Scout, Scout... That's a quarter of the way through the 400+ Google News hits, the rest are here if more are needed.
- Yeah I noticed and looked at those but most of them are from his Arkansas days, pre-2006 and nothing came out of his days at Samford.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. I fail to see whether "nothing came out of" it has to do with notability. We shouldn't place our own subjective opinions about their worth in order to determine notability. That's why we have more objective measures like the general notability guideline to help us. Strikehold (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. He was at Arkansas, left for Samford, then returned to Arkansas, so be careful how you read those articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Userfy until we see if he makes the team. Insufficient notability at this time and it seems like a longshot to make the squad, but an opportunity to establish notability in the future shouldn't be precluded. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

His NFL career or potential has no bearing on his current notability. Passing or failing WP:ATHLETE is as relevant as his passing or failing WP:POLITICIAN. As an additional criteria, if he fails one of those, we then fall back to the more general criteria of WP:BIO and WP:GNG. To me, it's pretty clear Mortensen passes those. Therefore, he's notable. Strikehold (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete Doesnt meet guidelines--Yankees10 16:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Care to share which ones? Strikehold (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I'm going with it because his college career passes notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Week Keep Or userfy RF23 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Meets general notability standards per coverage cited by Strikehold. Cbl62 (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG, which is enough to establish notability regardless of what WP:ATHLETE says. Jafeluv (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep poorly written article though. Needs improvement, but that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2009 (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.

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. 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 User:Cunard for fixing up the article. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert Felton

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

Fails WP:ATH and also fails WP:GNG due to lack of "signifcant coverage". Giants27 (c|s) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
weak keep correct me if I am wrong, but there are a lot of sources in (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) news. Maybe a different person. Thank you nominator for taking the time to try to save this article first, as per WP:BEFORE I strongly respect that. Ikip (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Most of those hits are about a chief police officer.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep Using this Google News Archive search and this one, I was able to find a number of reliable sources about the subject. This article from the Toronto Star provides information about him being signed by the Buffalo Bills. Furthermore, this article from The Buffalo News and this article from The Buffalo News provide more coverage about him. There are also more reliable sources that cover his college years. This article from Log Cabin Democrat discusses Felton's sense of humor and his impact on the University of Arkansas football team. There is also this article from The Morning News/Razorback Central which discusses his freshman year at the University of Arkansas. The ample coverage in reliable sources means that Robert Felton passes WP:BIO and this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep. User:Cunard'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. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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 WP:N; one of the articles is completely about him. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

*Keep per above links. A starter at a BCS school will almost always have an abundance of "significant coverage" by reliable sources Corpx (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Just going to strike my comments in light of comments made by the guy who created the article Corpx (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

*Withdraw The links Cunard provided show notability.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC) I think I'll let this run.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - 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.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How are the sources not substantial? Cunard (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete Not notable enough, he most likely wont ever play professionally.--Yankees10 01:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - And sorry, but some of these articles just should not be enough to make someone notable. If Robert Felton signing 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. Wikipedia has some serious notability issues if that's enough for inclusion.

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.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The first three articles I cited provide enough coverage about Felton to pass WP:BIO. Yes, the articles were about his failure to get drafted, but that should not 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 WP:ATHLETE, but that doesn't mean that this article should be deleted. WP:ATHLETE is a subset of WP:N, so if Felton passes WP:N, whether or not he passes WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant.
I expanded and sourced this article before Chris Nelson's delete vote, so G7 does not apply. Cunard (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually 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 too.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

All I have to say is that if someone with Felton's life accomplishments is notable, Wikipedia needs higher standards.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete - Almost passes WP:ATH, 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. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You are basing your delete vote mainly on Robert Felton not passing WP:ATHLETE. Why? Notability is not subjective. I agree with Uncle G (talk · contribs)'s essay at User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not subjective:

“

Wikipedia editors determine whether the world has judged a subject to be notable 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. Wikipedia editors determine whether a subject is notable not by 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.

”

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. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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 WP:CSP. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. 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 the 160 or so news hits to see if any of these are for this Robert Felton? these 107 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 WP:GNG threshold being met. -- Banjeboi 15:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As I commented above notability is not subjective. 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. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. 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. -- Banjeboi 01:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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, Cunard (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I came across something else that might be relevant to this discussion. WP:MILL 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. 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 WP:MILL "is not a policy, but may be consulted for assistance during and AfD discussion." The Toronto Star and Buffalo News 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 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. Narthring (talk • contribs) 01:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Local newspapers do cover college athletes, but there is no reason to disqualify these sources because of this. Wikipedia is not made of paper, so we can have as many articles as we want, as long as they pass WP:BIO. 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. Cunard (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2009 (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.

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 Speedy Keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. WP:NAC _Met^ty 17:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Tyler Lorenzen

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

Non-notable practice squad player, fails WP:ATH. Giants27 (c|s) 21:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

~~Delete, maybe userfy~~ Keep per Cbl62. ~~Assuming that practice squad players don't qualify, he doesn't pass WP:ATH yet, but he probably will.~~ He had a fairly successful career at UConn, and ~~if someone were~~ now that Cbl62 has been motivated enough to dig, ~~they might be able to make a case for him on~~ I agree that he qualifies on general WP:GNG grounds.~~, maybe not. But he may well end up on a roster somewhere soon enough, so userfication would be OK with me.~~ By the way, at least according to the Newark Star-Ledger[13], he and Jared are not related.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Strongest possible keep - This is not a vote on whether NFL practice players are notable. A college football player is notable regardless of whether he ever plays in the NFL if he meets general notability requirements. If there is significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media, he meets notability standards. Lorenzen meets that standard by miles. A search of the Newsbank database reveals well over 100 articles which focus on Lorenzen as their main topic. The guy was a finalist for the Unitas Award and has had articles written comparing him to Tim Tebow. An incomplete list of the articles focusing principally on Lorenzen include the following: (1) HUSKIES QB FIRST WENT TO IOWA ST., LORENZEN'S ROUTE TO UCONN INCLUDED STINT AT COMMUNITY COLLEGE, The Charlotte Observer (NC), December 27, 2007; (2) Juco transfer Lorenzen brings stability to surprising UConn Huskies, Associated Press Archive, October 30, 2007; (3) Lorenzen brings stability to surprising Huskies, Charleston Gazette (WV), October 31, 2007; (3a) Lorenzen, UConn overwhelm Maine, The Boston Globe, September 9, 2007; (4) Lorenzen stars in first start, leads Connecticut to 45-14 win over Duke, Associated Press Archive, September 1, 2007; (5) Lorenzen settles in as UConn's No. 1 QB, Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, August 18, 2007; (6) Lorenzen named starting quarterback at UConn, Associated Press Archive, August 14, 2007 (also published in Westerly Sun from Rhode Island); (7) Lorenzen's on his way, All-American QB signs letter of intent with UC, The Day (New London, CT), December 21, 2006; (8) Lorenzen finalist for Unitas Award, The Chronicle (Willimantic, CT), June 14, 2008; (9) UConn Has Its Own Tebow?, Louisville coach says Lorenzen is the Big East's version of the Florida QB, The Bristol Press (CT), September 24, 2008; (10) Is it a passing resemblance?: UConn's Lorenzen compared to Florida's Heisman winner Tebow, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), September 24, 2008 (article also published in New Haven Register and The Hartford Courant); (11) Lorenzen has NFL eyes watching, Connecticut Post (Bridgeport, CT), March 28, 2009; (12) Lorenzen finishes college dream: Former Eddyville-Blakesburg quarterback guides Huskies in International Bowl, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), January 3, 2009 (13) Different uniform, same pressure Summer internship in world of finance put Lorenzen's decision-making skills to test, Journal Inquirer (Manchester, CT), August 27, 2008; (14) LORENZEN TAKES CONTROL QB CAN FOCUS ON TEAM, NOT JOB, The Hartford Courant (CT), March 21, 2008; (15) HUSKIES CONNECT WITH LORENZEN, The Hartford Courant (CT), September 2, 2007; (16) Lorenzen still the man for UConn, Unlike last three springs, Huskies will not have a quarterback controversy, The Bristol Press (CT), March 11, 2008; (17) RIGHT WAY, RIGHT AWAY, LORENZEN MADE IMMEDIATE IMPACT, The Hartford Courant (CT), December 28, 2007; (18) Right Way, Right Away: Lorenzen Made Immediate Impact, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), December 28, 2007; (19) Lorenzen's 'it' initially hard to predict, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), December 16, 2007 (same article also published in Connecticut Post); (20) Lorenzen finds groove, has fun in rout, Connecticut Post (Bridgeport, CT), September 13, 2008; (21) Lorenzen back at right time as Huskies travel to So. Florida, Norwich Bulletin (CT), November 23, 2008; (22) Lorenzen starts, leads UConn, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), November 16, 2008; (23) Huskies' QB Lorenzen close to being back under center, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), November 12, 2008 (same article published in multiple newspapers including Bristol Press, New Haven Register, Norwich Bulletin, and Register Citizen); (24) Lorenzen goes from starter to 'coach', Journal Inquirer (Manchester, CT), October 9, 2008; (25) Lorenzen remains upbeat, Republican-American (Waterbury, CT), October 9, 2008; (26) Lorenzen will miss 6-8 weeks, Record-Journal (Meriden, CT) - September 30, 2008; (27) Lorenzen's collegiate career may be over, Connecticut Post (Bridgeport, CT) - September 27, 2008; (28) Lorenzen lost with broken foot, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - September 27, 2008 (same article published in multiple newspapers including New Haven Register); (29) UConn QB Lorenzen to miss at least six weeks, The Sports Network (USA) - September 27, 2008; (30) UConn Football: Louisville wary of Lorenzen's ability to run with the ball, Norwich Bulletin (CT) - September 24, 2008; (31) Lorenzen's running helps make up for turnovers, College football: University of Connecticut, The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT) - September 24, 2008; (32) Advice pays off for Lorenzen, The Chronicle (Willimantic, CT) - September 16, 2008; (33) Lorenzen seeks redemption against Temple, Republican-American (Waterbury, CT) - September 3, 2008; (34) Despite win, Lorenzen has work to do: Senior quarterback threw 3 picks in Huskies' season-opening win, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - August 30, 2008 (same article published in multiple papers); (35) Lorenzen solidifies starting QB job, Republican-American (Waterbury, CT) - August 14, 2008; (36) Lorenzen back as Huskies' top QB, The News-Times (Danbury, CT) - August 9, 2008; (37) Lorenzen aching to get better, The Advocate (Stamford-Norwalk, CT) - August 5, 2008; (39) Lorenzen can do job, but wants to do more, Connecticut Post (Bridgeport, CT) - August 2, 2008; (40) Who looks forward to 2-a-days? As 2nd year starter, Lorenzen ready to go, Journal Inquirer (Manchester, CT) - August 1, 2008; (41) Lorenzen On Watch List For QB Award, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - June 13, 2008; (42) Lorenzen out of Blue-White, Journal Inquirer (Manchester, CT) - April 18, 2008; (43) UConn's Lorenzen To Miss Scrimmage, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - April 13, 2008; (44) Injured 'klutz' Lorenzen may miss spring game, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - April 13, 2008; (45) UConn QB Lorenzen More Settled: QB Can Focus On Team, Not Job, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - March 21, 2008; (46) Lorenzen clear-cut choice at quarterback, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - March 11, 2008 (same article also in multiple papers); (47) Lorenzen right at home at UConn, Norwich Bulletin (CT) - November 4, 2007; (48) Lorenzen at center of Huskies' turnaround: QB has led UConn to three come-from-behind wins, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - November 2, 2007; (49) Commanding The Troops: Lorenzen Leads Huskies To Succesful First Half Of Season, The Daily Campus (University of Connecticut) (Storrs, CT) - October 19, 2007; (50) Lorenzen Leads Charge for Huskies, The Daily Campus (University of Connecticut) (CT) - September 24, 2007; and (51) ATHLETE OF THE WEEK: Lorenzen Throws For 298 yards In Huskies' 45-14 Thumping of Duke, The Daily Campus (University of Connecticut) (Storrs, CT) - September 5, 2007; (52) Lorenzen, UConn keep Duke in dark, Boston Herald (MA) - September 2, 2007; (53) Lorenzen will be Huskies' lead dog, Record-Journal (Meriden, CT) - August 15, 2007; (54) Top junior college QB headed to UConn, 6-5, 225-pound Lorenzen verbally commits to play for Huskies, The Day (New London, CT) - December 12, 2006; (55) QUARTERBACK QUEST, LORENZEN ROLLING OUT FOR UCONN OPPORTUNITY, The Hartford Courant (CT) - December 20, 2006. Cbl62 (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy cow, how'd I miss that.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Tyler is Jared Lorenzen younger brother and he did have some major exposure at UConn, but he still not on a active roster. He fell off tremendously after his college career but is still notable. Ositadinma (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Member of New Orleans Saints Practice Squad. .--Zta ♠talk♠ September 15, 2009 ♠Nastia '♣
- PS guys are not inherently notable.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Withdraw Per sources provided by Cbl62, it'd be nice for those to be added to the article. Could be a very nice article with them.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 21:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 21:55, 15 September 2009 (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.

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. Sandstein 06:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Kyle Calloway

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

Fails WP:ATH and also fails WP:GNG per this search. Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep He was drafted by the Bills.--Yankees10 01:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Just what Yankees10 said. --bender235 (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet WP:ATH, a guideline that the two commenters above appear to ignore. He needs to actually play a match of professional football, not be a 7th-round pick waterboy. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep lots of online and offline sources, subject meets general notability guideline even if WP:ATHLETE is not met. The Athlete guideline is inclusionary, not exclusionary per WP:ABELINCOLN.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2010 (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.

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Colin Peek

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

Fails WP:ATH and after a good faith search, he fails WP:GNG as well. Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep He was a starter on Alabama's national championship team, and his picture was on the 12/14/09 cover of Sports Illustrated. See SI cover here. Aside from the SI cover photo, there's enough non-trivial coverage (i.e., not passing references in game coverage) in the mainstream media, including USA Today, to establish notability. See (1) Yo Peek: Alabama tight end says the jokes are on his alias, USA Today, (2) Tide transfer Colin Peek ready to contribute, The Enterprise Ledger, (3) Alabama TE Peek has come up big in clutch, Gadsden Times, (4) Alabama tight end prospers after transfer, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, (5) Peek turns tight end into three-way competition, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, (6) Peek plans to appeal NCAA ruling, Tuscaloosa News, (7) Peek Has Setback, Tuscaloosa News, (8) Alabama product may fit TE-happy Patriots: Worth a Peek, Boston Herald, (9) Alabama TE Colin Peek still a mystery to fans, The Birmingham News, (10) Freshman Makes Strides at Tight End, Macon Telegraph., (11) A sneak Peek at tight ends: Georgia Tech transfer leads pack at pivotal position, The Press-Register, (12) Tight end, Peek, effective in practice despite ailment, Times Daily, (13) A new Peek: Georgia Tech transfer hoping to help Tide, The Anniston Star, (14) Gators Notebook: Alabama's Colin Peek rewrites family history, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, December 6, 2009, (15) ALABAMA NOTEBOOK: Tide TE Colin Peek eager to return to Atlanta, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - August 31, 2009, (16) Tide's Colin Peek is the 'black sheep' of his Florida family, Birmingham News, December 1, 2009, (17) Bolles TE picks Georgia Tech, The Florida Times-Union, February 1, 2005, (18) Colin Peek impresses NFL scouts at Senior Bowl: Former Bolles, Alabama tight end missed Wednesday's practice with a stomach bug, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, January 28, 2010, (19) Peek knew about SI cover, Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, December 23, 2009, (20) Falcons sign Alabama’s Colin Peek as free agent, Boston Herald, (21) Peek following grandfather's footsteps to Rose Bowl, Tuscaloosa News. Cbl62 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Instead of (implicitly) arguing that this is not a well-researched AfD submission, you could have rescued the article with this truck load of links. Are you still going to do that? --Pgallert (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply. I wish I had the time to improve every college football article. I spent hours last night researching this and other AfDs. I have also spent many hours in the past two weeks rescuing college football articles of living people that are completely unsourced. The immediate goal here was to determine whether this article should or should not be deleted. What I will do for now is to add the list of article citations to the article talk page in hopes that an interested Alabama Crimson Tide fine will pick up the mantle. Cbl62 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep Cbl62's research is very compelling. I would like to see it added to the article, but I don't want to do it. Our discussion here should be "is the subject notable" not "is the article complete" --Paul McDonald (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Withdraw Subject is clearly notable after another great research effort by Cbl62, so I'll withdraw this nomination. Cheers,--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2010 (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.

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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Trevor Harris

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

An undrafted free agent this year, Harris played at an extremely low level college and fails WP:ATH while a search doesn't show anything that makes the subject notable through WP:GNG. Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
'~~Delete'~~ changed to Keep this one is close for me, because he's got the national record--but it doesn't look like it's that much of a record--most passsing yards in a playoff game in division II. Okay, I couldn't do it... certainly a suitable entry for a sports encyclopedia. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment research below bears review. I'll change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Based on extensive non-trivial coverage of Harris in the mainstream media, including Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and other papers, Harris meets general notability standards. This is not a situation where a small school player simply gets occasional press in the local paper. I don't think I've ever seen so many feature articles about a Division II player. He won multiple awards as a top Division II player and has signed with an NFL team. As one article put it, Harris "is a Harlon Hill Trophy [given to the individual selected as the most valuable player in NCAA Division II] winner ... owned every career passing record in the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference." Examples of articles focusing on Harris (and they are just that) include: (1) Harris-led Edinboro lives by the pass, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Oct. 10, 2007, (2) Harris leads Edinboro past East Stroudsburg, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Nov. 15, 2009, (3) Name calling, Weeks of preparation could pay off for EUP’s Harris with a Saturday selection, The Meadville Tribune, April 20, 2010, (4) Brother to brother: EUP QB’s last home game may not be last for a Harris, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (link is to article as it appeared in The Meadville Tribune), Oct. 28, 2009, (5) Harris headed to Jaguars, The Meadville Tribune, Apr. 25, 2010, (6) Edinboro QB Harris signs with Jaguars, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, April 25, 2010, (7) Edinboro QB Harris named All-American, Erie Times-News, Feb. 29, 2010, (8) With NFL hopes, Edinboro's Harris prepares for Cactus Bowl: 'Boro QB in all-star game Friday, invited to Ohio St. pro day, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, January 7, 2010, (9) The Harris Show, Erie Times-News, August 30, 2009, (10) 'Boro's best bet: Highly skilled QB Harris gives Scots reason to think conference crown, Erie Times-News, Aug. 29, 2009, (11) 'Boro's Harris earns PSAC West honor, Erie Times News, Aug. 31, 2009, (12) Harris' 5-TD day helps 'Boro roll over Slippery Rock, Erie Times News, Oct. 19, 2008, (13) 'Boro's Harris has record-setting day, Erie Times News, Nov. 5, 2006, (14) 'Boro builds around young QB Harris, Erie Times News, September 13, 2006, (15) PSAC honors 'Boro's Harris again, Erie Times-News, September 28, 2009, (16) 'Sky's the limit' for Harris, 'Boro, Erie Times-News, April 6, 2009, (17) Sophomore QB steps up for Edinboro, Erie Times-News, August 23, 2007, (18) Harris climbs Edinboro charts, Erie Times-News, Nov. 4, 2007, (19) Desire vs. danger: Harris' style built for wins but puts injuries into play, Erie Times-News, Oct. 30, 2008, (20) Harris gets bad news, Erie Times-News, Nov. 4, 2009, (21) Harris faces biggest test of young life, Erie Times-News, Aug. 12, 2009, (22) Harris' 3-TD game leads 'Boro over IUP, Erie Times-News, Oct. 11, 2009, (23) Edinboro QB named PSAC West player of year, Erie Times-News, Nov. 14, 2007, (24) QB Harris adds to Edinboro record book, Erie Times-News, Nov. 12, 2006, (25) Harris 1 of 8 considered for D-II trophy, Erie Times-News, Nov. 18, 2008, (26) Harris, Bzorek claim All-America honors, Jan 31, 2009, (27) Edinboro QB Harris named region player of year, Dec. 2, 2008, (28) Harris makes history in loss, Nov. 23, 2009, (29) Harris looking forward to NFL future, Apr. 23, 2010, (30) Harris takes over all-time honors at Terwilliger’s old house, Nov. 14, 2009. Cbl62 (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawn The article has been greatly improved thanks to Cbl and his hard work here, maybe I should've checked NewsBank as well. Cheers,--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2010 (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.

Mistakes

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stone Hallquist

No reason given as to why this football player from the early 1900s is notable. Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: He passes WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep While Schuym1 was a bit mysterious by not adding further information, he's right. He played for a professional team in a professional league thus meeting notability criteria for sportspeople. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep Easily meets guidelines on notability by playing for a professional team. Edward321 (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep First sentence notes that he was a professional athlete. So notable under WP:ATHLETE. Rlendog (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2009 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) KuroiShiroi (contribs) 19:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris Nelson (baseball)

Non-notable minor leaguer who doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE and not enough sources to establish notability. Just being drafted is not notable. Giants27 ^T/C 02:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris Nelson (baseball) meets the criteria for WP:Baseball. It also meets the criteria for Wikiproject:Baseball. Please to remove the deletion template. For more information on WP:Baseball notability, see the large fuss I stirred up, as listed in the previous messages on this TALK page. Gjr rodriguez (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

- No it doesn't he's Double-A Secret ^account 16:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep. I'm not quite convinced that AA is a fully professional league (it's borderline to me), but I've added links to a couple of short articles about him. These are enough to push me over to the weak keep camp.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the page ungeneric, like the rest of pages the creator creates.--Giants27 ^T/C 20:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Colorado Rockies minor league players per usual consensus. Secret ^account 16:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep as standalone article, as Nelson is notable. He was a first-round draft pick and a minor league All-Star, and has received substantial media coverage (such as this article, for example, or his profiles in the last three years' worth of Baseball America annual prospect guides). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep as a 1st round pick. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Week keep only because he is on the Rockies 40 man roster--Yankees10 00:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep - He's a former first-round pick, a top prospect with accolades and he's on the 40-man roster. Plus, he has my name.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I've seen this before so I'll use it here, I'd like to WITHDRAW this AfD.--Giants27 ^T/C 01:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep Chris Nelson was on the verge of making the opening day 25 man roster for the Rockies this year, so for that fact alone, I think its a keeper...a weak one, but a keeper nevertheless. Mandermagic (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - My thinking is this - in any sport, high draft picks get paid big money and carry with them certain expectations. Therefore, they are notable enough whether or not they pan out. If they succeed and become stars, that's the story. But if they don't and become busts, that is the story, and a story worth telling as well.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yeah I agree with Chris, I think any first round pick is notable enough to have articles--Yankees10 22:46, 9 April 2009 (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.

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. I'm ending this one a bit early due to the snowy nature, and that nom. seems to concede the keep points. Good show, all. Wknight94 ^talk 19:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Adam Bright

Non-notable minor leaguer, good faith search brings up no coverage other than game recaps doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 ^T/C 12:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete no coverage other than results, hasn't played in a top pro league, or amateur competition, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 13:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep, you're right, the WBC is the near the top level of the sport, so I am switching to keep. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I've added a number of refs to the article. While the Baseball World Cup and the World Baseball Classic aren't the Olympics (which will no longer have baseball, FWIW), it seems to me that being selected by your country for those competitions means you are one of the best at that sport in your country. Those appearances, plus the all-star appearance, plus the added refs, are enough to push me into the keep column.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah I noticed the selection right after I finished the nomination, thanks for brining that here though.--Giants27 ^T/C 20:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious if you realized your link to the gnews search was only for the last month. Had you intended to link to all dates instead?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah my bad, fixed it.--Giants27 ^T/C 20:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep He played in the World Baseball Classic--Yankees10 20:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep He played in the World Baseball Classic for Australia. If he's not notable for being a minor league baseball player, he is definitely notable for being competing in the WBC. Borgarde (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Appears to have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. (Thanks, Fabrictramp!) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep as per the above comments, player appears to meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE due to his inclusion in the WBC. Mandermagic (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep for WBC participation, possible WP:SNOW. matt91486 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2009 (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.

Merge or Redirect

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 merge to Goose Gossage. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Todd Gossage

His father is Goose Gossage and he plays for the Chico Outlaws in the independent baseball which isn't affiliated with MLB so he clearly doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 ^T/C 13:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 14:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 14:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge with Goose Gossage, which does not currently include information about his family, but should. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge with Goose Gossage for reasons stated by Hit bull, win steak. Hardnfast (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Rich Gossage. He already has one sentence in that article (which is good enough IMO) Tavix (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect As the nominator I even didn't think it should be deleted but rather redirected and merged into Rich Gossage.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:45, 23 March 2009 (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.

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 redirect to Kansas City Royals minor league players. MBisanz ^talk 04:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Joe Dickerson

Non-notable minor leaguer hasn't played past Class-A, clearly doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 ^T/C 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ No evidence of coverage that would make him notable under the general guidelines. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect per JJL's point: nothing wrong with mentioning him and having a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 00:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 00:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable player--Yankees10 00:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Northwest Arkansas Naturals; fails WP:ATHLETE but mentioned there and rds are cheap. JJL (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep ....here is WP Athlete reprinted in its entirety, Dickerson has competed at the fully professional level of the sport of baseball: --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

1 People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.

2 People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.

Delete Class A is not a fully professional level, in the sense that one can make a living at it. Although judging from the article, he's now with a class AA team, he has not yet played a game at that level. We are debating whether or not to accept AA, and not everyone is convinced of AAA, but A is below any reasonable bar. And at any level, the player has to actually appear in a regular season game DGG (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a comment on the AA team -- their season doesn't start until tonight, so he hasn't had a chance to play at that level yet. (I know, could fall under a bus, etc.) I just don't want anyone to think that as of right now he's being purposely kept from playing by the team.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Weak delete or redirect. I've added a link to the OC Register article about him. I don't think that's enough by itself, but if anyone finds more I'll happily reconsider my !vote.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, nn baseball player. Disagree with a redirect. Wizardman 19:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete I agree with DGG - A ball is not fully professional. I would say anyone (other than first round and/or notable prospects) below AA should not be considered for Wiki pages unless they have done something extraordinary. Mandermagic (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Kansas City Royals minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2009 (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.

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 redirect to Northwest Arkansas Naturals. MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cody Strait

Non-notable minor leaguer doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 ^T/C 00:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ No evidence of coverage that would make him notable under the general guidelines. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect per JJL's point: nothing wrong with mentioning him and having a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable player--Yankees10 00:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Northwest Arkansas Naturals; fails WP:ATHLETE but mentioned there and rds are cheap. JJL (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. I've added a couple of MiLB sources (which do not show notability), and a link to a feature in The Baptist Standard. This doesn't get us all the way to WP:GNG. :( --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete does not meet requirements for WP:ATHLETE, few notable sources out there... Mandermagic (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Kansas City Royals minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (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.

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 merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Steve Singleton

A low level minor league all-star, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 18:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete or merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Gsearch not turning up notability through in-depth coverage; hasn't played beyond the Single-A level, which is not "fully professional" in my book. All-star appearance is an honor, for sure, but it looks like any give FSL player has a 1 in 6 chance of making the team.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Singleton is my personal favorite player on the Miracle. I've seen him play several times, and can say first hand that I believe he'll be the Twins' starting second baseman in no time. He was selected for the All star team by minor league baseball managers two years in a row. That should tell you something.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players per standard procedure. Spanneraol (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Contrary to what was said in the other AfD, the Miracle is not a professional team . They are a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Miracle is a 100% fully professional team. It isn't even debatable. The opinions of people who say "The Miracle is not a professional team" should not count. He clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2009 (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.

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 merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Steven Hirschfeld

Low level minor leaguer. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Low level future star. He's one of the most popular players on the Miracle who is a sure thing for the Twins in the next couple years.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Userfy. At present he does not meet WP:ATHLETE but if/when he does get to the big leagues, the article as it presently reads would be an excellent one. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. That is the proper location for minor league articles. Spanneraol (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 15:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete. He fails WP:ATHLETE. Popularity in the local market isn't the standard. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete, Has not been in a fully proffessional league and doesn't have significant independent coverage. A new name 2008 (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. He's not playing for the Twins, so it makes no sense to merge there. Merge to Twin's article. He fails WP:ATHLETE and we don't hold articles in user space because we expect the subject to eventually become notable. If he does become notable at some point, the article history can then be retrieved or restored. لenna vecia 16:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
He is playing in the minors for the Twins, so it makes sense to merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players where the main prospects are supposed to have mini bios. Spanneraol (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- - Ah, I misread. Adjusted. لenna vecia 15:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Merge the Minnesota Twins minor league players article seems a logical target. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep - not just a minor leaguer, but a minor league all-star. Rlendog (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- That rationale fails to refute the earlier point that no in depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists, and so won't outweigh it. Cite some sources. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk)
Delete. News coverage consists of trivial mentions in articles about the draft or individual games. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. BRMo (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2009 (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.

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 redirect to Larry Fitzgerald. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Fitzgerald

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

Fails WP:ATH since he has never played in a pro game, fails WP:GNG per no "significant coverage", shown here. Also notability doesn't transfer among relatives. Giants27 (c|s) 01:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 01:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 01:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - His kin does not earn him notability, and thus far he hasn't done anything to earn it himself. If he ends up signing with and playing for the UFL, he'll have it instantly. Until then, I'd say no.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep per this Google News Archive search. See this article from Star Tribune, this article from the Associated Press, this article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, etc. I don't doubt that Fitzgerald fails WP:ATHLETE, but because multiple, independent reliable sources have covered him, this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have merged some content into Larry Fitzgerald#Personal life and would have no issues with a redirect to that target. Cunard (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete. He fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. The coverage of him is not significant. All those sources say is that he is the brother of an NFL player and he is hoping to become an NFL player, too. Whatever notability he has in those articles is because of who his brother is. (I would be OK with a redirect to Larry Fitzgerald where he could briefly be mentioned there.) Location (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete All of the coverage is really about his brother once you boil it down. Redirect suggested by Cunard makes sense to me. - Richfife (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2009 (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.

Ongoing

I Created

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 Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Morris

Does not meet WP:Athlete User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain why it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, cause I'm confused. It specifically states that we can keep "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." How does the quarterback for a Division I school fail that criteria? I'm not saying he was stellar or that the article couldn't be improved, but those are separate issues. Just because an article needs improvement doesn't mean it should be deleted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Playing college football alone isn't enough to satisfy the requirements, otherwise we would have tons of college football-only player articles (and college baseball, college basketball, college golf), which we do not have. I interpret "Highest levels of amateur sports" to refer to Olympic or World Championship-level sports that do not have comparable professional levels: track, volleyball, etc. By your reasoning, anyone who competed at the "highest level" of amateur street racing or amateur skateboarding would be in. Either you get paid full-time for your competition or that competition has some newsworthy medals attached to it is how I read those sentences.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 12:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no linkage between #1 and #2. Look above and below and you'll find they are just lists of criteria, not "#1 XYZ and #2 if he doesn't fit that, but only if he isn't Y, then it can stay unless #3 he's born on October 22nd..." etc.

Strong Keep This article is definitely notable enough to be kept since he was a college athlete who was a starter and was invited to the NFL Combine this year. Which obviously makes him notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. --Iamawesome800 (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Hasn't played professionally in what is basically a professional sport. Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE per nom. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The vast majority of college athletes don't go to the Pros. Besides, he meets the WP:Athlete criteria to a T (see below for more). — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Because having been a college starter and having been invited to the NFL combine is insufficient to establish notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

*His amateur career seems to satisfy the guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete I'm returning to my original conclusion. He competed at a high level, but I don't think he competed at the highest level. There just doesn't seem to be any notability demonstrated. Unless the policy is that all div 1 athletes who start in college automatically qualify, I just don't see why he belongs in the encyclopedia. His achievements are impressive, no doubt about it, but does he belong in the encyclopedia because he played quarterback at Marshall? I don't think so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Long-established practice is that individuals in professional-type sports, including American football, aren't notable for non-professional play, unless they're really distinctive. This guy isn't really distinctive, and he's not professional. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Not quite sure where you are getting the "long-established practice" part because I don't see anything even close to what you purport. WP:BIO, a well established guideline, states to the contrary and no policy states anything close to what you support. If you want to change policy/guidelines, please do so on those pages, but I think it's a keeper under our current guidelines/policy. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
keep meets guidelines set forward in essay on college football notability. Needs work. The "long-established practice" mentioned above is not really "accepted" or "established" as the existence of the NFL does not negate notability at the college level, as discussed here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI but that is not a guideline just an essay. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

EMPHATICALLY STRONG CAPITALIZED LETTERS KEEP (ok a bit of overkill there, but you get the point). This particular person explicitly meets the criteria in WP:BIO which state "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." The quarterback for a team is inherently the highest position for an athlete on a football team. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep. I think he meets the current form of WP:ATHLETE. I seem to recall that an earlier form of the guideline suggested that subjects would be presumed notable for their amateur careers only if they played in sports with no professional equivalent. However, the current version makes no such distinction. I suppose one could argue that because Marshall doesn't play division I football, he didn't participate at the "highest level", but given that he played the most visibile position on the team, and apparently started his entire junior season, is probably enough. I would feel differently about a reserve player. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Marshall does play Division I football. Football Bowl Subdivision level too. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yep! From Marshall Thundering Herd: "Since moving to Division I-A, Marshall is 5-2 in bowl games and has finished in the Top 25 three times" ...--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  - I stand corrected. You know, I'm not sure I'm happy that I'm more up to date on WP:N than Div I football... Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    - I forgive you!--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment As I said above, "Long-established practice is that individuals in professional-type sports, including American football, aren't notable for non-professional play, unless they're really distinctive". For proof: consider that most amateur league baseball players competed in college baseball, which corresponds quite well to college football, but we've long considered that minor leaguers aren't inherently notable. If they, being former college baseball players, aren't notable, how can former college competitors in another sport be inherently notable? Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, who is this "we" you speak of? Where did you find such a consensus? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete based on no demonstrated notability, and no entitlement at all to inherent notability. The phrase "Competitors who have competed at the highest level of amateur sports" is preceded by another section that refers to "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." If it had been intended that "competed in an high-level amateur league" was entitled to the same treatment as "competed in a fully professional league", then something of that nature could have been added. But it wasn't. I would conclude that WP:ATHLETE does not mean that all college athletes are notable just by having competed in a major college football conference. "Highest level of amateur sports" would not mean a bye just by playing NCAA Division I-A football. Arguably, Bernard Morris could potentially be shown to be notable in comparison to other college (amateur) football players, such as an All-America selection, or being invited to play in an all-star college game (Hula Bowl, Shrine Game, etc.). Passing for 1,346 yards isn't too shabby, but it's not passing leader material either. Mandsford (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It may be preceded by another section, but that section lists ONE form of criteria. It isn't inclusive (you don't have to satisfy both conditions). This is inherently notable. He doesn't have to be an All-American or even a trophy winner. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Under your interpretation of the guideline, every college football, baseball, volleyball, basketball, golf, track, soccer, softball, lacrosse, fencing, rowing, etc to ad nauseum player would be notable. That's why the guideline is 1. Fully professional is there exists such in that sport and 2. Highest level of amateur sports for those that do not exist: Olympics and World Championships.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 12:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Your interpretation of the guideline is interesting, but the guideline states nothing of what you stated above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete: My interpretation of the athlete guideline is that if there is a pro-league, they should have played a game in that league. This really does open the door to considering all college players as members of the highest-level of an amateur sport. I don't think a minor league player is notable, which could be construed as being even closer to professional sports than a college player. ^Law_shoot! 13:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment but a minor league player (such as arena football, world league, etc) would be a professional league. College football is separate, different, and distinctive--and the highest level of the amateur expression of the sport.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What about college tennis? If college football has this distinction, then the athlete guideline would allow all college footballers to have an article. I believe a college ballplayer, for any sport, would have to pass WP:N as opposed to ATHLETE. ^Law_shoot! 14:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the minor league sports, the usual outcome on those has been that lower level players still have to demonstrate notability within the sport. We had a discussion a few months back when someone created articles for every player on the Fort Meyers Sun Sox, which plays in the Class A Florida State League in baseball. The consensus was that, despite the fact that the FSL is a "fully professional sports league" (all of its players are paid to play), that didn't mean that all players were inherently notable. Inherent notability is, and should be, limited. We don't have a bye for every scientist involved in cancer research or the search for alternative energy either. I think that Mr. Morris himself would acknowledge that there are lots of things that are more important than playing college football. As for saying that all college athletes should be inherently notable, its not much different than those blue ribbons that say "participant", and which are handed out to every kid who didn't place 1st, 2nd or 3rd in a competition. Or giving a little trophy to every kid that plays Little League baseball. Somehow, I think that most college football players will not worry too much about whether they have been honored on Wikipedia, and that the trophies that really matter are the ones that they have earned. Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice, but what does that have to do with this particular article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Response Since you asked... It gets back to the simple statements in WP:ATHLETE concerning which players are inherently notable and which ones are not. Bernard Morris is not inherently notable, and not any more notable than any other college player. Your argument for "Keep" is "meets guidelines set forward in essay on college football notability." Let's be absolutely clear on this, since the word "guidelines" implies some type of acceptance by the Wikipedia community. What you refer to as "guidelines set forward in an essay on college football notability" are not guidelines at all. They appear to be one man's proposals [14]. If anyone takes the time to read the essay, they will see that it includes suggestions on how to respond to people who refer to the established guidelines [15]. Arguing that Bernard Morris is entitled to his own article because it meets a proposed guideline is not much different than saying that I'm entitled to have my mortgage paid off because there is a "law" that has been introduced in Congress. I'm afraid that your personal opinion is entitled to no more deference than the personal opinion of any of the other persons in this discussion. Mandsford (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. There's nothing that would set him apart from any other starting member of his own team, much less the players on a multitude of similar teams worldwide. BQZip01's assertion that the quarterback is "inherently the highest position for an athlete on a football team" is too strong a statement: other positions are often occupied by superior athletes, and team captains (when designated) are not necessarily quarterbacks. There's no reason that quarterbacking (on an NCAA team) should guarantee notability. As for WP:Athlete, I'd say that in general, international competition in amateur sport is considered to be "the highest level" (e.g. Olympics, world championships, etc.). Although within the U.S., the NCAA would probably be viewed as being "the highest level", it's probably useful to be aware of WP:Bias when evaluating notability. TheFeds 18:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say he was always the superior athlete, but the QB is the "field general" and makes the calls on the field. I'll grant you they aren't always the team captains either, but most are. I concur that internationally, international competition is indeed the highest, but since we're talking about football (almost exclusively an American sport), the highest amateur status they can attain is in college/NCAA. Therefore I say keep. Can you explain why you don't exactly. I'm a little confused. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to consider whether or not notability guidelines should be interpreted with a regional bias. It seems to me that if we consider the NCAA to be "the highest level", then we're ignoring international (American) football leagues and tournaments. In any other amateur sport played at an international level, we'd consider tournaments between nations to be higher-level than tournaments between schools. Also, consider the CIS from Canada: while football is similarly widespread there, there is no special cultural recognition of university football teams, and likely no compelling reason to designate any of their team members (much less quarterbacks only) as being notable on Wikipedia. TheFeds 21:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm okay with CIS football notability. There's even a canadian football project that digs into it...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
"I think we need to consider whether or not notability guidelines should be interpreted with a regional bias."
Great. Please bring it up on the guideline's page. Until that changes, our discussion is based on the current criteria.

"It seems to me that if we consider the NCAA to be "the highest level", then we're ignoring international (American) football leagues and tournaments."
Why? Is there a higher level of amateur competition in American football of which I am unaware? The section you point to makes only a passing reference to a single amateur league (CIS).

"In any other amateur sport played at an international level, we'd consider tournaments between nations to be higher-level than tournaments between schools."
Well, this isn't any other amateur sport, is it? Since there are no tournaments between nations for football, this is a wonderful academic discussion, but it simply doesn't apply here.

"Also, consider the CIS from Canada: while football is similarly widespread there, there is no special cultural recognition of university football teams, and likely no compelling reason to designate any of their team members (much less quarterbacks only) as being notable on Wikipedia."
So because there is cultural recognition of football teams in the U.S. and there isn't a cultural impact in Canada, we shouldn't put any of them on Wikipedia? I would argue the exact opposite. If people in the U.S. care about football, then it would be reasonable to have a in-depth section on it. If they don't care then we might not even bother because no one would read it. IMHO, I wouldn't care one way or another if they included it or not. They too seem to be the pinnacle of Canadian experience in American football. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete As a group, NCAA football players do not meet the WP:ATHLETE requirement. They would then need to be notable on their own (and satisfy WP:BIO) and he is not. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Question Why do we even bother to have WP:ATHLETE if people are going to completely ignore it without cause or resaon?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Notability (sports) failed to reach consensus. Thank God WP:ATHLETE is only a guideline and not policy and we can apply some common sense (WP:IAR). Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thank goodness we have ambiguity. That way we can continue to have heated discussions like these. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't have common sense; please keep that in mind. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep per WP:ATHLETE. Marshall is a member of NCAA Division I FBS, the "highest level in amateur sports". The way WP:ATHLETE is written, Morris is notable. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Issues with that guideline should be brought up elsewhere. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's no indication that he competed at the "highest level". I didn't see any notations on bowl games. He wasn't, apparently, selected for any major team or conference honors. So while he competed at a high level, he clearly hasn't competed at the highest level, unless you argue that every Div. 1 college athlete (or starting athlete) deserves an article on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the old "bowl game" argument. Sigh. If you want to re-write WP:ATHLETE please move your discussion there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Simply put: he has not competed at the highest level. This is why you're stuck arguing (wikilawyering?) instead of being able to add cited content that would establish notability based on established guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop calling me names, man. Stick to the issue. Just do a freaking google search and you'll find 7,670 articles for +"Bernard Morris" +Marshall. Okay, probably not all of them are reliable, probably not all of them are third party, probably not all of them are even about our subject here. But I'd gather that just by glancing at the first articles brought up (including one from CBSSports.com that there's some reasonable notability here. And just because "User:Paulmcdonald doesn't have time to add references to an article" is certainly an argument to avoid in deletion discussions--although I can't even believe I have to mention that! Yes, the article could be improved. No, it should not be deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)\

It's been a good discussion, and I've enjoyed the debate. Regardless of how the discussion on Bernard Morris comes out-- keep, delete, no consensus-- it's not likely to set any type of precedent. I'm sure that all of us-- Paul, Midnight, Zip, Stricky, Olympian, etc.-- will be meeting again in future debates. I regret that we can't all have a few beers, but I plan to have one here in a few minutes. As for Mr. Morris, looks like he's having a good senior year, and I hope that he has a great career ahead of him. Nice talking with everyone. Mandsford (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed first rounds on me!--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Finally something we agree on... ;) respectfully, ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

- - This discussion about the guideline might be instructive for some here.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 01:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete No indication of particular accomplishments as an amateur athlete. Probably we need some intermediary step between saying all players who make game appearances for Division one schools are notable, and requiring a major national level award. I leave it to the fans. I don't even want to think about below division I. If he is drafted, and plays, he'll be notable. DGG (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete. WP:ATHLETE says "competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports", not "competitors who have competed at the highest amateur level in sports". This is not an amateur sport, so the subject isn't notable on these grounds. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment College football most certainly is an amateur sport.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment. Sorry if I'm showing my ignorance here as someone to whom "football" means a sport played with the feet, but isn't college football the same sport as the one played in the NFL? And isn't the NFL professional? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    - I think I understand the question. "Professional" in ordinary usage means to show the highest standards in performing a task, and "amateur" can refer to a hobby. Although players in college and the NFL both work very hard at what they do, "professional sports" (more commonly "pro") refers to being paid money for doing the task and amateur means that one is not paid. Mandsford (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      - Yes, I understand that. My point is simply that american football is a professional sport, so the player can't be said to play at the highest level in amateur sports. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
        Where is a higher level in amateur football? You are saying that the highest level in football is the pros, fine, but college is the highest an amateur can achieve. After that they become pro. There isn't a distinction in the guideline. Like I said before, you are welcome to try and change the guideline, but as it stands now, there isn't a linkage that says "if there is a professional version of the sport, then the highest amateur league is not valid". They are two separate criteria and they aren't linked. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
        That bit of the guideline says "highest level in amateur sports", so only applies to amateur sports, of which American football is not one. For all less parochial sports such as association football and cricket the guideline is interpreted to mean that it doesn't apply to amateur players because the sport is played professionally, so why should we make an exception for this sport? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
        College football is, by definition, an amateur sport. It has no direct links to professional football.
        
        The guideline doesn't say "amateur sports with no professional leagues." It just says "amateur sports".
        
        Your snide remark/link thinking this to American exceptionalism is out of line. I'm not stating my points on the subject because it is American, I'm stating it because I believe it to meet the guidelines. Your attempt to push the article into a WP:BIAS argument is uncalled for. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
        
        But college football is the same sport as professional football. And, as regards American exceptionalism, I'd just like to point out that articles on even professional association football (soccer) players routinely get deleted on the technicality that they play in a league where some other clubs are not fully professional, and articles on players in amateur leagues, even if they are playing at the top amateur level in their country, get laughed out of court. Why should American football players be treated any differently? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
        Why treated differently? Well, 1) there's a lot more press, as evidinced by the simple google search referenced above; 2) there are differences between college ball and NFL, specifically in a) selected rules, b) pagentry, c) exhibition d) length of time played (college since 1869, NFL since 1920; 3) AfD discussions should really be handled on a case-by-case basis, and WP:ATHLETE is a guideline not a policy, and 4) I can't help it that people have misinterpreted WP:ATHELTE on other sports, why should that mistake apply here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
CommentI think this has been said before but don't say delete just because you think it needs work. Fix it don't say delete since it needs work. It stupid and pointless. And he does meet WP:Athlete since he has played in DI which is the highest level of amatuer sports.--Iamawesome800 (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just playing at D-1 is not the highest level of amateur sports. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

- I'll bite what would be a higher level of amatuer sports for American football?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The "highest level" is a guideline consistent with all the other guidelines for notability. Playing at the highest level would be demonstrated by achieving notability in any number of ways. If you think the standard should be that all Division 1 athletes get their own article on Wikipedia, I suggest getting consensus for that clarification. I don't think every player who starts or plays at a Division 1 school is notable and every player on every Div. 1 football team isn't playing at the highest level. It doesn't make sense to me to say this player played at the same level as more notable players, let alone more notable players who played at the same position and were recognized as notable. They played in the same conference, but not everyone plays at the highest level. If you can come up with a notable accomplishment that justifies this subject's inclusion (and shows he played at the highest level for a college quarterback or football player) please provide a citation to the source, and I will be happy to consider it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Currently we do not have pages for every Div-IA football player, nor for any players in other college sports. What would be next? College baseball and softball players would have to be included as well, as there is no Olympic competition in those sports anymore. This would be a vast change in the way that the policy has been interpreted until now, one that shouldn't be made on this page but would need a consensus for that change. There are a few college players who achieved notability by themselves, see Tommie Frazier, but they are rare and achieved notability on their own although they didn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Think about this: players in af2 do not as of now get in under the guideline, as they are only paid $200 per game, not enough to live on. Yet every single player in that league played collegeg ball somewhere, a lot of them in Div-IA. If they don't make it when they are playing at a professional level above college, then why would experience at a level below that which didn't qualify them now do so?--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 00:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've heard a lot of music here, but I ain't dancing. I'm still waiting for a simple, straightforward answer about how college football is not the highest level of amatuer American football. "That's not the way we do it in _____" is not an answer, it's a dodge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. And I'm still waiting for a simple, straightforward answer about how American football is an amateur sport. It's obviously not, so any guidelines about players in amateur sports don't apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it NOT an amateur sport? They don't get paid. How is it professional? Declaring something to be "obviously not [an amateur sport]" doens't make it so. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that football is not an amateur sport. The problem is the hyperlinking in the guideline of amateur sport, which goes on to qualify collegiate football as amateur. My interpretation of ATHLETE is 'if the player does not play in a sport that has a professional level, then that player has to play in the highest level offered' - meaning without playing a single pro-football game, ATHLETE is not satisfied, just as a minor league American baseball player is not notable. ^Law_shoot! 22:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

THat just doesn't wash. Your interpretation is completely different from the actual text.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So BQZip01 and Paul McDonald, you do understand that under your interpretation of the guideline, every college baseball and softball players would now be eligible for inclusion? Law, I find your interpretation to be the most realistic. Let me ask the others this: why have the first category? Who would get in under the first category who wouldn't already have gotten in under the second? --User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Answer any number of athletes who skip college and go right to the pros, which is fairly common in both basketball and baseball.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Clever but disingenuous. The first criteria doesn't exist solely for the few dozen NBA players who skipped college, or even the few football players like Eric Swann and Dominic Rhodes who didn't play college football.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 06:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No. It's accurate and destroys this argument (not all of yours, just this one). You can't say "besides, who else would this apply to?" and then, when someone mentions those to whom it applies, you don't change the discussion to "well, that's not why the first rule was written." No one said it was. We just answered your question and proved that there are reasons why someone could fall in #1 and not in #2. That's all. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep -- anyone who doesn't understand the magnitude of top-level NCAA football doesn't really follow American sports: It's a bigger sport, by money and viewership, than many, many so-called professional leagues in other countries (save for top-level soccer). Here are some facts and figures to prove it (and help my co-editors in the future): A top level football school make major revenue: Texas ($60.9 million), Michigan ($50.4 million), Florida ($48.2 million), etc. The 44 schools from BCS conferences that played in a bowl game in 2007 had combined revenue of $1.3 billion. No one can credibly dispute that Texas, Ohio State or USC football isn't financially (as well as in media coverage) bigger than a Greek professional basketball team like Olympiacos B.C., yet those players are somehow okay --in fact, the entire Euroleague (not merely the Greek professional league) has a revenue of less than one hundred million. Let's compare the big boys of EU soccer: Looking at German soccer, the top-league Bundesliga had 2006/07 revenues of €1.3 billion ($1.7b). Looking at UK soccer: While top-level Premier League is obviously a major league with exceptionally high revenue (€2.2 billion ($2.8b)), The Championship clubs' revenues in 2005/6 were £318m ($470m) at an average of £13m ($20m) per club (League One for the same year totaled £102m, League Two £61m). Stepping slightly away from football, the NCAA has a $6.2 billion, 11-year media contract. Thus, discounting a top-level college football player for the reason that he plays in "college" and not the NFL doesn't really meet the idea that was meant with WP:ATHLETE. I am not extending this to other NCAA sports or football levels (though top-level men's basketball could probably argue just as easily), but for top-level NCAA football, the line must be drawn. --Bobak (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability for a biography isn't established by the profitability of the sport a person participates in, but on how notable the person and their individual accomplishments are.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment of course. But there's been a lot of talk here and on other AfDs about the legitimacy of college football as a highest professional league. That was the intention of the information being provided, and I for one welcome it to the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying that a player can't get in under general WP:N guidelines. See Tommie Frazier or Jamelle Holieway as examples. Or Eric Crouch who wasn't drafted and never played for an NFL team. But all of these guys got significant coverage in reliable sources fir their college accomplishments. I don't think Bernard Morris has reached that level of notability, and he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE either, so he should go.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 06:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment This article needs work so don't delete because he hasn't done much, I mean he has to have been on a some team as a practice squad player at sometime right? I mean why else would he have been invited to the combine, I mean he has talent.--Iamawesome800 01:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a cite that he signed to a practice squad, that would get him in.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 06:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? Are you going to write about how he really tore up the practice field? Let's keep notable athletes and delete non-notable athletes. That's my guideline. If they ain't been written about, they ain't notable. Not even if they were on the roster. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2008 (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.

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. The arguments to delete are more persuasive but the arguments to keep cannot be discounted entirely, therefore there is no real consensus at this point. Shereth 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tim Sims (gridiron football)

Player not of any note, fails WP:ATH. No evidence provided or found of ever having played in a pro game, was not picked in the 2008 draft, no evidence of what he has done until he was signed in 2009 but has only been an off-season and practice roster member only, so he is not yet of any note. He may play pro this coming season, but Wikipedia will still be about then. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep (article creator) Passes WP:GNG, with articles on major publications such as Scout, along with mentions by the Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Chronicle again, ESPN, San Francisco Chronicle again, and theres probably more out there, even passing mentions in these notable websites/newspapers means he was/is meaningful enough to get mentioned. Keep.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Week keep There is a fair bit of coverage of him as a college player at Stanford, and at least one in the Montreal Gazette for the Allouettes.--kelapstick (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete He's never played a regular season game as a professional, and doesn't get anything more than local coverage (San Francisco and Sacramento cover Stanford University the same way that the L.A. Times would cover USC and UCLA). Being mentioned in an ESPN account of the UCLA-Stanford game doesn't mean he's individually notable on a national level. Mandsford (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hate to badger but the SF Chronicle is a national newspaper not "local coverage".--Giants27 (c|s) 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  - Sorry, no. The San Francisco Chronicle does not publish editions outside of the State of California and it is not a "national newspaper". Certainly, it is a well-known newspaper, but it isn't USA Today or the Wall Street Journal. Stanford Cardinal sports, as with 49ers and Giants games, are part of the Chronicle's scope of coverage. Mandsford (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    - Well still, the SF Chron. isn't exactly your average old local paper so I think that it still counts as "significant coverage" but you're free to think what you want.--Giants27 (c|s) 20:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
      - The general notability guideline for people -- WP:GNG -- does not require that there be media coverage in a national publication. It says sources should be reliable secondary sources -- the SF Chronicle is pretty clearly the kind of reliable secondary source that satisfies WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Substantial non-trivial coverage in mainstream media in San Francisco and Montreal, including that cited by Giants27 and kelapstick, satisfies general notability standards. Even if he never plays a game in the NFL/CFL, a college player may be included if he meets the general notability standard as evidenced by such non-trivial coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep needs editing work, some more sources, etc... but that's not a deletion issue. I'm good with WP:GNG here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how a name-drop in a full page story about someone else, or a one line mention in a match report can ever be considered as "significant coverage" (adjective - important; of consequence). If that is the case then just about anyone involved in any sport at any level would meet WP:GNG. None of the links provided above or on the article's page are a substantial artical about the subject. He is an unremarkable person, no different from the other tens of thousands of college football players who did not get picked in the draft. Trevor Marron (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to this I read on the notability guidelines: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail" and "For example, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article" as the vast majority

of articles on the subject are match reports that don't mention him in any detail then I doubt they count. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, this level of coverage wouldn't work if it was in the New York Times either -- not a single one of the SF Chronicle or Sacramento Bee newspaper articles is about Tim Sims himself; he got a mention with all of the other Stanford players in a column called "Stanford Notebook". He got a paragraph on a scouting report webpage back in '03. You're just kidding yourselves when you say "substantial non-trivial coverage". Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Scout.com article is all about him but you have to register to see the rest, however the needed info is there.--Giants27 (c|s) 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think that you've won this battle, G27; you've persuaded three other people that Tim Sims is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article, and this will either be a "no consensus" or an outright "keep". I've got nothing against Sims-- I hope that he gets to play professionally, whether it's in the CFL or even the NFL. And I appreciate that you've taken the time to source the article and put in content to at least make a case for notability. Bear in mind, however, that the vast majority of college football players don't get, and are not entitled to, their own articles (there's an exception in WP:ATHLETE for players who have played at the highest level of professional sport). In those cases, they can still be written up as part of an article about a team's season (such as 2008 Stanford Cardinal football team). Everything gets published on Wikipedia, but not everything gets to stay. Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know that most college players are not notable, however I created this article because he signed with a fully professional team and had been a member of a team. Would I have created the article after this debate? Probably. But in the case of the other one, Kwasi Nkansah, no way because he hasn't played and there are no real sources out there for his notability which although I knew that at the time of creation, I ignored based on it being a guideline. And trust me I know not eveything stays on Wikipedia as a semi-regular AfD nominator and voter, I've seen that and know that.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete I am not convinced, there is no significant coverage to justify his own article and would also point out that Wikipedia is not a democracy Trevor Marron (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2009 (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.

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 delete. Will userfy on request. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Kwasi Nkansah

Player not of any note, fails WP:ATH. No evidence provided or found of ever having played in a pro game, was not picked in the 2009 draft, so he is not yet of any note. He may play pro this coming season, but Wikipedia will still be about then. Trevor Marron (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

~~Comment~~ Userfy (changed per creator's request) Signed to a three year contract with the Montreal Alouettes as of May 28 this year, and the season starts in less than two weeks. I am on the fence, on the one hand there is a good chance that he may play this year, on the other, he may not and he will be brought up at AfD again.--kelapstick (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Unfortunately Nkansah isn't on the Al's preseason roster and I found a note on the CIS website indicating he was cut after rookie camp. I would have said keep if he was active for preseason, but he's not. PK T(alk) 16:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete This isn't his month, but being cut from the team in training camp leaves him to having to prove notability the usual way, and I don't see it. Mandsford (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete (article creator) please userify however as if he makes a team I'd like to keep what's there so I don't have to redo it. Thanks.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You can save it to your hard-drive. Mandsford (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Userfy the editor has asked to userfy the article, please have an admin do so... or the editor could simply move the article to userspace right now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2009 (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.