Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaymar Johnson


 * 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.  Jamie ☆ S93  18:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaymar Johnson

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. On a professional team roster but has never played in a game. No significant media coverage to otherwise pass WP:N  Grsz 11  21:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 21:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick search of Newsbank and google turns up extensive coverage of this person, including feature articles about him in mainstream newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune, the Star-Tribune (Minneapolis - St. Paul), and The Times (Northwest Indiana). See "Jaymar Johnson helps inspire Gary Pop Warner", July 13, 2008, "This receiver running right route: Johnson thrives since getting out of Gary", Chicago Tribune, April 21, 2008, and "Vikings rookie camp: Sports was his way out of danger; Sixth-round draft pick Jaymar Johnson did his best to avoid trouble growing up in Gary, Ind., by devoting himself to athletics", May 4, 2008.  Playing in an NFL game is an automatic ticket to notability, but its absence does not equal non-notability.  In this case, extensive non-trivial coverage in mainstream media establishes notability. What's with the spate of college football AfD's all of a sudden? Cbl62 (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are three more feature articles (total of six) on Jaymar from mainstream newspapers: (1) "Johnson confident despite being cut," Post-Tribune, Sept. 1, 2008, (2) "Family Led the Way to Success - Johnson's Siblings Kept Him Safe in Rough Childhood", St. Paul Pioneer Press, May 3, 2008, and (3) "Wirt out to prove a point", August 16, 2001, Post-Tribune. Cbl62 (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not a chance in hell. Plenty of media coverage, the guy was drafted and is still with the team after a year. He's notable enough.► Chris Nelson Holla! 22:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Chrisjnelson member of a team for over a year and drafted.-- Giants27 T/  C  23:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Chris and Giants--Yankees10 23:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the general notability criterion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with local sourcing as "significant coverage" for WP:N, can we please stop with all the nominations of players who just got drafted please? Also stop with the article creation of unsigned free agents? That seems like a simple compromise, as AFD is a annoying place for nominating these. Secret account 12:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Johnson was drafted last year, and hasn't played in a game.  Grsz 11  16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply The fact that he hasn't played in a pro game is irrelevant.  The one-pro-game test is a supplemental test for automatic inclusion -- not a basis for exclusion.  Remember that pro football wasn't popularized until the 1950s, whereas college football was already a widely-covered sport in the 1880s.  Even today, college football is one of the most viewed sports in the USA -- far exceeding many "pro" sports (such as pro hockey and soccer).  Accordingly, a college football player who has received significant, non-trivial media coverage is notable -- regardless of whether he ever goes on to play in the NFL/CFL.  Folks should not be nominating college football players simply because they haven't played a pro game.  Before making a nomination, they should investigate to determine whether notability is established by general standards.  In this case, notability is clearly established by numerous feature articles about Jaymar in the mainstream media, including one of the country's leading newspapers, the Chicago Tribune.  Cbl62 (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with Cbl62's reply here. I think it is disingenuous to hold that an ice hockey, lacrosse, curling, or Gaelic football player who plays in one game as a professional or Olympian is automatically notable passing the lax WP:ATHLETE, but dismiss as "local sourcing" college football players who pass the more stringent WP:GNG through having significant media coverage (in papers that have hundreds of thousands of readers). The other sports are all great sports (okay, except curling), but they have no where remotely near the fanbase size, media exposure, or revenue-generating ability of American college football. (See: WP:CFBATHLETE). Strikehold (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems notable to me, no BLP issues. Charles Edward (Talk) 16:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:BIO; The Chicago Tribune is a national, not local paper, and it is at least as respected as The New York Times and The Washington Post. If Jaymar Johnson's article in it is "local" coverage, it belies the argument (presented in another similar concurrent AFD) that local coverage is somehow of inferior quality. The Star Tribune is currently the 14th largest newspaper by circulation. I second Cbl62's appeal to nominators to please do a Google News search for media coverage before nominating more of these similar articles, as this recent glut of American football-related nominations is bordering on disruptive at this point. I'm not assuming anything other than good faith, but I think it is a reasonable expectation that nominators ensure for themselves that the nominated article does not (first and foremost) meet the General notability guidelines. Only if they fail that should additional criteria, like WP:ATHLETE or WP:DIPLOMAT or WP:MUSICIAN come into consideration. Strikehold (talk) 21:40, 29 April 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.