- 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 17:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete college footballer per WP:BIO Ohconfucius 02:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. MER-C 05:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - nn college player, low ghits. SkierRMH,07:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Borderline, but still Keep. Starting running back of a NCAA Division I-A college football team. I interpret WP:BIO as allowing this. I concede the article needs some work to be brought up to date involving the 2006 season which will make it more clear to be keep worthy. If not a starter or major position player (ie, heavy stat producing position like RB, QB, WR, etc) then no. --MECU≈talk 15:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been mentioned in the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football discussions.. --MECU≈talk 15:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - starting running back for a Division IA program, and a program in a major BCS conference (The Big Ten) no less. Has definitely garnered mentions in the national press and is therefore verifiable. Needs some clean-up and more references. Johntex\talk 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've seen several notes agreeing with the nom that says "delete college footballer per WP:BIO". But the only thing that WP:BIO states about college sports is that its subjects are generally notable: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played...at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States.". If we're going to delete him, could I hear a specific passage of WP:BIO say why? Patstuarttalk|edits 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Johntex\talk, who will probably add significant content and cites during the next half-time break. Doc Tropics 18:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO. It is a misreading of the criteria to argue that having a starting position on a college team and garnering run-of-the-mill press attention as a result equates to notability of the subject. Greater distinction within this context is required. Eusebeus 11:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So a key running back in a key sport doesn't pass WP:BIO? The point is, that it does pass WP:BIO, and if you'd like to propose a change to WP:BIO, feel free, but as it stands, he clearly passes. -146.186.44.191 12:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I simply disagree. the relevant section here is :Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. That is a weasel guideline if ever there was one and represents a non-compromise compromise between people like myself who consider r-o-t-m college athletes unnotable and those who argue otherwise. To argue notability through the simple fact of playing on a college team as a starter and garnering media attention as a result is gaming the system wrt various guidelines (BIO, V), the spirit of which to assert a greater notability. Eusebeus 13:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So a key running back in a key sport doesn't pass WP:BIO? The point is, that it does pass WP:BIO, and if you'd like to propose a change to WP:BIO, feel free, but as it stands, he clearly passes. -146.186.44.191 12:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with Eusebeus. —Encephalon 11:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - OK, so let's just put it out in the air now, that everyone who is asking for delete is doing so full well admitting that this is contrary to WP:BIO, because WP:BIO was worded differently than they wanted it to be back when it was created. -Patstuarttalk|edits 16:54, 20 December 2006 (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.