Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Ruoff (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Alex Ruoff
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is about a college athlete who is otherwise not notable except as a member of a particular team Student7 (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete College athlete. As per nom - Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- As per the logic in the previous AFD. While he may fail WP:ATHLETE, he does meet the general notability guidelines, having coverage in multiple independent sources, thus rendering WP:ATHLETE moot. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This guy has EXTENSIVE coverage in news sources.  Hundreds of articles (over 700 recent ones?) in newspapers and 50,000 google hits spells notability for me, no matter how un-interested I personally happen to be in college sports.  Cazort (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. The previous AFD was barely a month ago. Nothing has changed. No new argument for deletion. No attempt to go to WP:DR. Waste of everyone's time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Previous AFD conditions have not changed. The references provided clearly show this person to meet the criteria of notability. WVhybrid (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused - Is it that US College Basketball is especially popular? Or that he is especially brilliant? Do they all get that much coverage, and does WP:ATHLETE apply or not? - Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Is US College Basketball especially popular? Simple answer is yes. Is it more popular than NBA basketball, probably. I'm sure we could get a lively debate started on that subject, but it should be done somewhere else. WVhybrid (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. Thanks for the pointer. Exactly! He is not a WP:ATHLETE and therefore should not be covered.Student7 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * oic - He is an athlete but doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. That's what I thought. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ATHLETE is onw way of establishing notability for athletes. Not the only way. Please read the page more fully: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. . . Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I get that. Hence why I asked the other questions. Why does he get that much coverage and do all college basketball players get that much?- Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some do, some don't. It depends on the person. LeBron James for example, was getting plenty of stories about him while he was in high school. So, while he didn't meet wp:ATHLETE, he certainly met the general notability guidelines, and thus including him was permissible. Same goes for this guy. He's gotten enough press that, even if he hasn't met the requirements set under WP:ATHLETE, he can still be considered notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I think this discussion has hit on why I defended this article. Ruoff meets the general criteria per WP:N (The fact that I am a fan of his play may have helped a bit B-)  )
 * All the positive press he has received around the country has made him notable by the criteria of this organization. I didn't set the criteria, but I took am glad to use that criteria to defend this article when it gets hit with AfD and now, AfD2. WVhybrid (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, ty. Lots of hits - no point arguing with his general notability. Keep - Ddawkins73 (talk) 08:45, 15 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.