Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff Price

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable college athlete. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the single reference provided does not establish notability. Boston (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, Keep, thanks Paul McDonald for improving article. Boston (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of new debate, I'd rather not opine either way. Boston (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Quickly added four references from independent sources: ESPN, Sports Illustrated, USA Today, NY Times... player has plenty of notability in the media, but the article does need to be updated as it appears to be a few seasons behind.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately I find these passing mentions of one of his kicks trivial, and not satisfying of WP:BIO. It is far from "significant coverage". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Weak Delete None of these articles do anything for notability except the one that states that he was a Ray Guy Award finalist. That makes him notable, not all these articles that mention he had a punt in a game.--2008Olympian^chitchat 19:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Mitico's research, I have moved to delete. He is right on with his interpretation of the objectives of WP:ATHLETE.--2008Olympian^chitchat 19:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear, the citation (an ND press release) indicates he was "one of ten semi-finalists chosen from a list of 47 punters that were originally nominated", not a finalist. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, semi-finalist. But top ten in the nation I think makes one notable.--2008Olympian^chitchat 05:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then your reading of WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE differs from mine. Being in the to 21% (10/47) doesn't seem particularly notable at all to me. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 06:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the original 47 were chosen from 121 teams in the BCS, giving you roughly 8% (assuming one punter per team). Mitico (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but still, we're talking about being a semi-finalist for a punter award, not a finalist for the Heisman. Doesn't seem sufficient to be notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Originally I was inclined to keep, because I thought that this article had potential for notability, especially if he were to "go pro". As this point, notability is hanging on a thread of a top 10 punter semi-finalist award nomination. However, as a senior, though he was expected "to take over as punter" according to SI, he was platooned later in the season due to inconsistency & injury. Though NFL teams gave him a tryout, he never made it out of minicamp. I believe these are the kind of articles that WP:Athlete is trying to avoid: "XXXX was a college athlete for XXXX notable program, and now is a junior financial analyst at XXXX". Though 100 times better than the billion soccer articles and many other articles, I don't believe Price meets the notability requirements at current. Mention of Price & award in 2006 ND football article is sufficient. Mitico (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have listed some articles at Talk:Geoff Price that may help in establishing notability. Mitico (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Per the above. Hogvillian (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - College athlete playing at a major program like Notre Dame, which is probably the most historic program in the country, warrants a keep. The fact that he was a starter, and a nominee for the top punter in the country makes him an even stronger candidate. GoCuse44 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - so you honestly think that every player on ND's roster deserves an encyclopedia article, simply because they play for "a major program"? Such a position certainly isn't supported by WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Per Mitico, WP:POTENTIAL doesn't really apply here, and neither does WP:NOTABILITYIf he had been a finalist for the Ray Guy Award I'd say keep but semifinalist doesn't count Thus he doesn't apply to WP:ATHLETE either.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 21:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:ATHLETE, competed at the highest level of amateur athletics (NCAA Division I). — X96lee15 (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, He played at the highest level of amateur sports and a semi-finalist of a major national award.09er (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• COmment I think both of you are mis-reading WP:ATHLETE, as since football is also a professional sport, that means a player needs to play at that "highest level". Otherwise, all NCAA Div 1 athletes would get articles (every single wrestler, diver, lacrosse player, etc), which clearly isn't the intent of WP:ATHLETE. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think you can say it "clearly isn't the intent of WP:ATH" as it's written quite ambiguously at this point. Also, I wouldn't have a problem with every Div I athlete having an article either. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI respectfully disagree on your view. It states “People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport…” not “People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport that does not have a professional equivalent…” I am not one that say that every College football player should have an article but we are talking about a player that was up for a national award that plays for Notre Dame not a division-3 second stringer. - 09er (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2009 (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.