Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devin Frischknecht


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Devin Frischknecht

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Undrafted free agent who does not pass WP:ATHLETE. Good faith search has only recent news and this article about his recent signing shows no evidence of a great college career. Being released today does not help out his cause notability wise. Giants27 T/  C  20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  – Giants27  T/  C  20:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  – Giants27  T/  C  20:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I've been as guilty as anyone of creating too many articles of non-notable athletes on the cusp of a pro career. That's why I'm trying to avoid that and get others to do the same. This player simply doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE yet.► Chris Nelson Holla! 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (for now) no notability now, could easily be re-created if he's signed elsewhere RF23 (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, since for now this fails WP:ATHLETE, especially now that he got released. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE, because he "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport" - for American football, that is Division I FBS. Also passes WP:BIO with plenty of significant media coverage. Feature articles: Devin Frischknecht likely to be key target for Cougars in Seattle Times, JC All-Americans to sign with WSU in Scout, Backup tight end steps up in Seattle Times, WSU tight ends carry mature label in The Spokesman-Review, Cougars can count on Frischknecht in The News Tribune, Tight end: WSU's position of strength in Scout, Cougars aim for versatile tight ends in The News Tribune, Washington State lands top junior college TE in The Olympian, Cougar TEs: Big expectations in Scout. Strikehold (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per numerous feature articles cited by Strikehold. As noted in other discussions, playing a game in the NFL is an automatic ticket to notability, but a college football player can be notable without playing in the NFL if, as here, he has received significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream press. Frischknecht is borderline but has received sufficient coverage to establish notability under the general guidelines. Cbl62 (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - All college starters will receiver some amount of media coverage and mentions from the papers of the area. It does not make them particularly notable in the scheme of things. Also, WP:ATHLETE never intended for the "highest amateur level of a sport" to include college football. It's more for individual sports. There are thousands of D-I college football players that are not and will never be notable, that will never be considered by professional teams. Being a D-I college football players does not make one notable enough for inclusion here, and neither should the occasional mention in the local paper.► Chris Nelson Holla! 06:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Using phrases like "Occasional mention in the local paper" is disingenuous at best. There is a world of difference between "mentions" and coverage like that shown above. The articles cited are full-length articles exclusively about the subject. They are also not simply "local papers". Scout.com receives millions of unique hits each month and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a daily circulation of 435,000 . It is also disingenuous to state with surety what the "intent" of WP:ATHLETE is -- that statement is nothing more than your own interpretation. Interest by professional teams has zero bearing on an individual's notability. College football itself is more notable, by just about any measure, than most other sports, professional or otherwise (See: WP:CFBATHLETE for further information). Strikehold (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete He did nothing in college and most likely will do nothing in NFL--Yankees10 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An opinion of whether he "did" anything, in college or otherwise, is pretty irrelevant, and is certainly not a valid rationale for deletion. Whether you expect him to do anything professionally is equally irrelevant, in no small part to WP:CRYSTAL. Playing in the NFL would guarantee notability under WP:ATHLETE, but it is no more required for a player to be notable than is WP:POLITICIAN. Strikehold (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Giants27: What is the rationale behind nominating this article for deletion, when you voted "keep" for Bear Pascoe? You said he "Played highest level of pro and amatuer football" -- that was a player who had not actually played professionally (he was a late-round draft pick), but played amateur football in Division I FBS. That is the same situation for this player. Strikehold (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple, I deem drafted players unconditionally notable and if undrafted and they didn't have a prolific college career or are not currently a member of a team (or otherwise non-notable) then I believe they should be deleted. Bear Pascoe was drafted and not only drafted but currently on a team.-- Giants27 T/  C  23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are of course entitled to that opinion, but nominating an article or voting based on that goes against all the notability guidelines. The assertion that someone is notable when they are on a team, but if they get cut before playing a game makes them non-notable violates "Notability is not temporary". Having a "prolific college career" is a subjective measurement, and there's no reason that is better than using the general notability guidelines—which Frischknecht passes. Also, a player is not non-notable simply by, as you suggest, not being drafted or on a team, that violates WP:BIO, which clearly lays out the basic and additional criteria for personal notability—which, again, Frischknecht passes. Strikehold (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But he was never notable not in college or his short pro stint, if he made the team or any team for that matter he would be notable and since we're not a crystal ball we can't assume he'll be notable at some point.-- Giants27 T/  C  01:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He is notable through WP:GNG. Strikehold (talk) 03:13, 6 May 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.