Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marques stevenson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 03:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Marques stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
NN athlete: references appear to be the same recruitment press release, no information is presented. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as speedy decliner. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. -Atmoz (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep needs lots of cleanup. Passes WP:ATHLETE (unless it's been re-written again without my knowledge, hard to say...) Has sources, some are myspace and don't count, but ESPN and the Rivals.com recruiting stuff is okay by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO. Not even close. And Paul disagrees with how WP:ATHLETE is interpreted, but he knows full well that consensus is that football players only meet WP:ATHLETE if they play in a fully professional league. If they do not, they need to meet general WP:N requirements. --2008Olympianchitchat 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's hard to tell what WP:ATHLETE says because it keeps getting re-written--for a while there, several times a day (under the guise of a "consensus of one", I might add). But since you brought it up, college football is, in my opinion, the highest level of the amateur expression of the sport of American football. If they would ever play it in the Olympics, then maybe that would qualify--but they don't. That said, it is a weak article but I'll stay with keep on it for now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe me, I understand that's how you interpret the policy. but that view has been soundly rejected many times. If a college football, baseball, or basketball player gets coverage in reliable sources, then they get in under standard notability requirements, see Colt McCoy, Mike Minor, and Stephen Curry. But not under WP:ATHLETE: that standard is limited to professional football, baseball, and basketball players. Many of them get an article although they do not meet the larger guidelines, see Kerry Cash, Jerry Browne, and Richard Rellford.
- By and large, in the pros, most of the articles are good articles and there are fewer pro stubs like the last three players I listed. To open WP:ATHLETE to all college football and baseball players would flip that on its head: most of the articles would be stubs like the last three and there would be fewer good articles. So the good articles still get in this way under, but under WP:N, not WP:ATHLETE.--2008Olympianchitchat 06:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Soundly rejected" and that rejection has been soundly rejected many times by many others, specifically with reference to college football. You might want to go look at the recent discussions (beware-it's a book of heated discussion!) on amateur status and WP:ATHLETE. Anyway, 1) I'm not opening up WP:ATHLETE to all college football players, we're talking about this one; 2) I admit (again) that the article is weak, but I'd still like to see it stick around and potentially be improved by an enthusiastic editor, 3) WP:ATHLETE is a guideline, not a policy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I was there, I started the most recent discussion. Anyone who wants can read the discussion and see that your view, despite your essays to the contrary, were rejected. The result was that highest level of amateur sports was specifically amended to state that it referred to the Olympics and World Championships. That means not college sports.--2008Olympianchitchat 07:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Last I read, it said "usually means Olypics or world championshiops" ... care to point me to the Olympic American Football page or the World Championship of Amateur American Football page?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, but I will point you to the first clause, which requires participation in a fully professional league. And I note that you won't touch college basketball players under your interpretation of the guideline. As I said before, your interpretation has been rejected many times, most recently here.--2008Olympianchitchat 02:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Last I read, it said "usually means Olypics or world championshiops" ... care to point me to the Olympic American Football page or the World Championship of Amateur American Football page?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I was there, I started the most recent discussion. Anyone who wants can read the discussion and see that your view, despite your essays to the contrary, were rejected. The result was that highest level of amateur sports was specifically amended to state that it referred to the Olympics and World Championships. That means not college sports.--2008Olympianchitchat 07:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Soundly rejected" and that rejection has been soundly rejected many times by many others, specifically with reference to college football. You might want to go look at the recent discussions (beware-it's a book of heated discussion!) on amateur status and WP:ATHLETE. Anyway, 1) I'm not opening up WP:ATHLETE to all college football players, we're talking about this one; 2) I admit (again) that the article is weak, but I'd still like to see it stick around and potentially be improved by an enthusiastic editor, 3) WP:ATHLETE is a guideline, not a policy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By and large, in the pros, most of the articles are good articles and there are fewer pro stubs like the last three players I listed. To open WP:ATHLETE to all college football and baseball players would flip that on its head: most of the articles would be stubs like the last three and there would be fewer good articles. So the good articles still get in this way under, but under WP:N, not WP:ATHLETE.--2008Olympianchitchat 06:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think this passes WP:ATHLETE, cause last I checked the College of Redwoods was not D1.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 01:05, 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.