Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Tyler

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The result was WITHDRAWN - Nominator endorses early closure. ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Tyler

Wikipedia has come to an understanding of what constitute notable athletes. These guidelines have been discussed and debated extensively and used repeatedly as the foundation for AFD discussions conerning non-notable athletes. Per WP:ATHLETE athletes generally have to fit one of the following two categories to warrant their own article:

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.[9]
People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.

This means that eventhough an athlete may receive coverage in their local paper or play at a collegiate level, where they receive coverage for their involvement in a team, they are generally not notable until they play at the highest level. There are several HS and College players who have existing articles.

This is a non-notable college football player who hasn't done anything. He is no more notable than your local newsreporter or councilwoman. Just because there are some articles, doesn't make the player notable. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that NCAA Div 1 players are automatically notable as having played at the highest level of amateur sports is a relatively new one. Now I am not opposed to consensus changing in this regard, but I do take exception to the assumption of bad faith or other allegations made to me here and via email. The college football program doesn't even make the claim that playing for a Div 1 team makes a player notable. In fact, according to their criteria, one needed to go on to the pro's, win one of a handful of awards, or be inducted into a the college football hall of fame. Furthermore, there iz an extended history wherein college players and even minor league professionals (NFLE, IHL, minor league baseball, etc) are not considered notable. I reviewed about 4 months of AfD's and couldn't find a single occurance wherein those claims were supported. In fact, the precidence is that it doesn't matter if they have some coverage at a lower level, they aren't generally considered notable unless they go on to the pros. See the following as just a sampling of the precidence.

Again, if consensus has legitimately changed over the past few months, I am fine with closing these now. But I do take exception to allegations of bad faith or pointiness. Consensus WAS that College players and Minor League Professionals were NOT notable. The highest level of amateur sports WAS considered to be the case only if there were no professional levels or we were talking about world championship/olympics.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look man, these all of these example articles are athletes that failed both WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. The fact that some of the participants only said "fails WP:ATHLETE" doesn't mean that you should go find a bunch of players that fail WP:ATHLETE but meet WP:N to put up for deletion.--2008Olympian^chitchat 03:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I posted them as an example of the fact that apparently consensus has changed. *I* made a good faith nominations based upon what I understood consensus to be on the subject, apparently it has changed. There was a time where players who were drafted, and had college resumes were deleted per ATHLETE. But it appears that consensus has changed, and I'm fine with that... hell I encourage that. Thus, my note, and let me bold it this time: I am fine with closing these now. I don't need the rude look man and other inuendo of bad faith that I've seen here, at my talk page, and via email.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there appears to be a debate at wp:athlete, I notified them of this ongoing afd

Delete. Per nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Balloonman has nominated several college football players for deletion with the same rationale, so I will post my same rationale to all of his AfDs.) WP:ATHLETE is considered to be an additional criterion to notability, as indicated here: (Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.) Whether this player may or may not meet WP:ATHLETE should not be the question. The basic criteria, as outlined by WP:BIO, is that these players must be the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]. It also says that if the depth of the coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability. Take a look at the sources referenced by the article - do they not meet these requirements? I think they do. BlueAg09 (Talk) 11:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE (competed in D1 FBS football, the highest amateur level of his sport) and WP:N (awards and sources from the article). Oren0 (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the past the highest level of amateur sports has been read not to include division 1 sports. This may have changed, but previously, that criteria was used for sports wherein there were no professional levels.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the guideline. It says "highest amateur level." It does not say "highest amateur level if there is no professional level." Not to mention that every college athlete you've nominated easily meets WP:N independent of any presumption of notability from WP:ATHLETE. Additionally, many of your AfD's are from some time ago when WP:ATHLETE was very different than it is now. In June, the line on amateurs was: "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports and who meet the general criteria of multiple secondary sources published about them." Clearly things that failed that guideline could pass based on how the policy reads today. Oren0 (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, your examples above are from baseball, hockey, and soccer. In none of those instances is NCAA D1 competition the highest level of amateur competition (all three are Olympic sports). There is no Olympics for football, so D1 FBS competition is the highest amateur level. Oren0 (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources check out, passes WP:N §hep • ¡Talk to me! 11:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets general notability guidelines, which generally take precedence over specific conditions listed under WP:ATHLETE (which are meant to help establish notability if the general conditions aren't met). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:N, which is merely supplimented by WP:ATHLETE. — neuro^(talk) 20:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:N does not matter that it fails WP:ATHLETE.--2008Olympian^chitchat 04:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and possibly reprimand. --Bobak (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N trumps WP:ATHLETE. I expect every competent administrator to know this. SashaNein (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:ATHLETE--Iamawesome800 23:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE: plays at the highest amateur level for his sport - Division I American college football. Grsz ¹¹ 03:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.