Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Colson


 * 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. X clamation point  01:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jason Colson

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

I have removed the prod from this page and bought it here for discussion, it may not meet various notability guidelines, but it is a decent article, just needing reliable sources. An ignore all rules exemption may be appropriate if it can be sourced properly? I have no opinion on this article yet, but feel it should be deleted if it can't be improved. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  19:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep under speedy keep ground 1. Wikipedia isn't cleanup, please don't bring things here unless you're certain they should be deleted.  This is an excellent guide.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I had a PROD on this page and the proposer of the AfD removed it. It shouldn't be speedily kept because there are other people who think it should be deleted. I'm not sure why he bright i there instead of just leaving the PROD. But since it's here we need to discuss the merit of this article or lack there of. — raeky ( talk 06:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have only bought it here because it is next to certain that if I didn't, someone else would have. Its a case for deletion, which I have put up for discussion, this IS the place for it. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  21:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. He may become notable in the future, but doesn't appear to be so now. The fact that the team he plays for apparently isn't notable (at least, it doesn't have an article, but I realize this doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't notable) also indicates his lack of notability. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 21:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails athletic guidelines as he isn't professional. Tavix (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I stand by my original PROD, the player isn't notable so shouldn't have a page here. — raeky ( talk 04:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to clarify WP:Athlete, it states that one must have participated in the highest level of amateur sports. While I admit that NCAAF-FBS is neither the Olympics or World Championships, I would also like to point out that it is the highest level of amateur American Football. This is not to say that I am defending this article, but wouldn't WP:V be more appropriate grounds at this time? After all, isn't Wikipedia supposedly about verifiability? 71.192.250.255 (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum Or for that matter Notability_(sports) would also be a much better argument. 71.192.250.255 (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The "top" of college football is Bowl Championship Series which he never participated in that I can tell, if he did and theres reliable sources to say he did then maybe under that clause of WP:Athlete but I still feel hes not a notable player and isn't eligible for the draft anymore I think. — raeky ( talk 06:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry, did you read the first sentence of BCS? BCS is the championship format for NCAAF-FBS. The teams change every year for the bowls, but the membership in the division is what makes it the highest level of amateur competition. As a "for instance" UWV plays in a conference whose champion is gauranteed a spot in the BCS every year. But why are you belaboring the point? I've already given you better arguments for deletion. 71.192.250.255 (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My original PROD was based on Notability_(sports). — raeky ( talk 06:55, 25 March 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.