Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad Beauchman


 * 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Jihad Beauchman
WP:BIO, A really good college athlete - but that's about the sum of his life. Speeded once already. Rklawton 07:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Should I include the amazing outreach programs he installed at yale for the young black kids in the community? would that keep the page up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirrc (talk • contribs)
 * First, read the links I've posted on your Talk page. Second, read WP:BIO.  This will help familiarize you with Wikipedia's standards and help point out areas where this article might be improved.  Lastly, please sign your comments with four tilde's so we'll know who posted them.  Rklawton 08:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and expand. How I read WP:BIO is that someone who manages to land All-American status in the NCAA would just barely meet the standard for amateur sports players ("Sportspeople/athletes who have played... at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States"). However, I'd like to see some citations for the claims in the article, and right now there's nothing in the article that clearly states his achievements specifically enough for a good judgment to be made on his notability. If someone knowledgeable in track and field competitions could make a determination, I'd change my vote to support theirs. --FreelanceWizard 09:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; the article's primary claim to notability, at least as I read WP:BIO, appears to be unverifiable as per research by Joe. As such, my vote changes to delete. --FreelanceWizard 03:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What part is unverifiable? Not the All-American part, not his economics major part.  So what part? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 09:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I Say Keep.. The kid was amazing at Nationals as we almost never see anyone from the ivy league in the jumps do as well as this kid did. I'm sure he broke his school records as well. Sounds like a pretty decent kid too. -- Tracksharked 10:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the above user's only contribution to Wikipedia consist of what you see here. Read into that what you will, but I don't think it helps the case any.  Rklawton 17:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If he makes a career in sports, he may be reintroduced. As for now, he is only potentially notable. Fram 20:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable inasmuch (a) as the subject's Yale University biography and DirectAthletics athlete history suggest that Beauchman did not earn All-America honors (having, instead, been named a finalist to be an Academic All-America and an Academic All-Ivy Team member; (b) as, assuming arguendo that Beauchman was honored as an All-America, he is nevertheless non-notable per WP:BIO, which, pace Freelance, I construe to reference, with respect to (American college sports, only those sports that are themselves notorious (meriting, for example, articles apropos of coaches [e.g., Rick Barnes] or teams [e.g., 2005 Texas Longhorns football team]), such that those partaking of such sports are likely to be newsworthy or are, in significant numbers, likely to essay profesional careers&mdash;as against those of NCAA basketball, football, and baseball, participants in NCAA track-and-field are, even those earning All-America honors, are in many cases profoundly unlikely to pursue professional sports&mdash;and (c) as, irrespective of the extent to which the subject's biography comports with WP:BIO, I'm not a particular fan of the broad sportspeople criterion of BIO. FWIW, it seems well-settled that any extra-athletic activities undertaken the subject don't confer notability, so it can, I think, be safely said that Pirrc need not to adduce the subject's community service toward the proposition of the subject's notability.  Wow, I began that entry intending to support weak keep and, as is my wont, got a bit pleonastic.Joe 02:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  I Say Keep. (References). http://ustfccca.cstv.com/sports/division1/spec-rel/061906aab.html and also http://ustfccca.cstv.com/sports/division1/spec-rel/071306aab.html, i am part of this group, so this should vefiry that he was both an all-american and academic all-american -- Tracksharked 10:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I say editors shouldn't vote twice in the same AfD. I also think that editors who do want to vote twice should have a total of more than two contributions to Wikipedia, unlike your case.  Rklawton 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per above, as well as WP:BIO: "at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Vanity. Although the subject should be congratulated for attaining All American status, having ONLY THIS ACHIEVEMENT does not make the subject "widely recognizable" or "memorable" (as per the 100-year test in Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies) or "encyclopedic".  Even if you apply the Google-test, the results can be partitioned into two groups: 1) publications by his alma mater, and 2) results from competitions.  By the way, when WP:BIO states "at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States", I would suggest that the "highest level" in the subject's sport would be at the Olympic level.  Ultimately, the question is: "Is the subject well known BEFORE being placed as an entry into the Wikipedia?"  The answer is: "No." (And as an afterthought, what about an athlete for a  sport like American football, which is not a game included in the Olympics?  For American college football, the "highest level" would probably be the Heisman Trophy.)
 * Wookiepedian 22:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that you cite the two parts of WP:BIO that are said to not have broad support, while ignoring the part that does and that is more binding - his achievements "at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." The subject was indeed well known in his area prior to being an entry here, the verifiable information proves it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand. Just because something is verifiable does not make it encyclopedic or notable or worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. Your referenced "verifiable" article   states that he achieved 11th place at the NCAA Track & Field Championship.  That competition is not the "highest level" in the field of high jump, and his performance was not the "highest level" even within the competition.  The Wikipedia article for high jump has, as its illustration, "Gold medal winner Ethel Catherwood of Canada scissors over the bar at the 1928 Summer Olympics."  Are you suggesting that the Olympic games are at a lesser level than the NCAA Track & Field Championship? (When I read the phrase "at the highest level...including college sports in the United States", I'm assuming that the phrase means "at the highest level of a sport which could be played in college, including sports played in the United States not played anywhere else in the world", which takes precedence over "at the highest United-States-level of college-sports-in- the-United-States". There's a subtle difference, which goes back to the American football and Heisman Trophy example I gave earlier. )
 * Wookiepedian 23:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum, Wookiepedian 23:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was the highest level at the competition, as it granted him All-American status. That makes him one of the tops in the nation that year.  I've always read the "highest level" clause as "We have articles on professional athletes, which is the highest possible level for those sports, and articles on the top atheletes at the amateur level when there's no professional alternative," such as these track stars.  The Olympic Games are an entirely different situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't have a hand-picked national team that competes internationally in these sports? I find that hard to believe.  Surely that would be the next logical level above college competitions.  Rklawton 02:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Badlydrawnjeff, it is possible to be a high jumper after college; see (also located in Wikipedia as Charles Austin), who was born in 1967 and "proved he is still a force by winning the 2003 U.S. indoor title.".  According to the article, Austin even has an agent (Cubie Seegobin) .  Likewise, college athletes do participate in the high jump in the Olympics, such as Hollis Conway: "Conway went 7-8 3/4 in the event at the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, Korea, setting a U.S. collegiate record and earning a silver medal. He won a bronze medal in the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain after going 7-8 1/2 in winning the U.S. Olympic Team Trials that year."  There are also other international venues; check out the Wikipedia entry regarding  International Association of Athletics Federations.  As far as Beauchman's earning 11th place in the competition, there are only ten All American high jumpers .  Furthermore, "He was the eighth American in the field"  of that particular compeition, so apparently two All-Americans didn't compete in that particular NCAA competition (or did worse than he did?), and at least three foreign-born  students did better than he did...? So I'm guessing a) that All American status is determined by one's overall performance during a season, and therefore b) that the particular competition in which he placed 11th was not THE highest level ("the IAAF" equivalent or "international ultimate-finale event") in his field.
 * Wookiepedian 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (minor clarifications)Wookiepedian 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (Ambiguous "eighth")Wookiepedian 22:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * At the collegiate level, this is THE highest level meet. Anything beyond, including the olympics, would no longer fall under the scope of the collegiate level. The status of All-American is awarded to the top 8 finishers and the top 8 americans overall in an event AT the NCAA National Meet. Beauchman was the 8th finishing american, earning the HIGHEST recognition by the USTFCCCA and the NCAA. The finisher in 9th was not an american, and because of this only 10 persons were awarded All-American status. While the specualtion about whether this is the highest level has been only that, speculation, as a track and field coach, I can assure you that this IS the highest level meet on the collegiate level, therefore satisfying the guidlines set forth by Wikipedia. Look at any collegiate track and field team schedule, and you will notice it is the final meet, and the meet most prized by all programs, with only their most talented and dedicated competing at that level. Tracksharked 22:58, 10 August 2006


 * Tracksharked, so that brings up three questions:
 * Question 1: According to your explanation, is it correct to draw the conclusion that "All American" status could be conferred in the field of high jump in any given year upon anywhere between eight students (all top 8 finishers are American born) and sixteen students (top 8 finishers are foreign-born, followed by 8 American born) ?
 * Question 2: Would the following situation be possible: Suppose all but one high jumper at this final event had been born outside the United States.  The sole American-born student earns dead-last place among all the competitors.  But he still would get "All American" status, correct?
 * Question 3: Is the NCAA National Meet limited to American colleges, or can colleges from other countries (such as from Germany) participate?
 * Wookiepedian 03:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The scenarios you suggested above would be possible, yet that american who finished last would still be the BEST american collegiate high jumper in the country, quite an achievement in itself. But I believe you are approaching this competition in the wrong manner. The amount of qualifying for the event means that only the BEST collegiate atheletes will make it to the meet, and only the ELITE will excel. All atheltes who wish to compete must meet a qualifying standard in order to enter a regional meet. Then at the 4 regional meets (east, mideast, midwest, west), only the top 5 are guarenteed a spot at the national meet(Beauchman finished second at the regional meet, losing first only in a jump-off with a florida jumpoff). This double qualifying means only the best are invited to the National meet, which is only for schools in the NCAA, which are US schools. International schools have different requirements of their students who are allowed to compete (no age limit or amateur requirement), so there is no world collegiate meet. I hope that helps.Tracksharked 03:55, 11 August 2006


 * Thank you for the clarification regarding my questions. It sounds to me that the NCAA National Meet is very important in the domain of the NCAA (or more specifically, Division I college athletics?), and is the final word in the realm of NCAA participants,  but arguably it is not the final word for college athletes in general.  There was nothing stopping him from participating in the Olympic trials during college or afterwards except for his desire to participate and his own performance in trials, correct? If Beauchman wins a medal at the Olympics, then he most probably would deserve to be included in the Wikipedia, for he would likely become "well known" (his name would probably be printed in every newspaper in the country, and he would probably appear on national television for the awards ceremony and/or interviews); otherwise, ONLY winning the NCAA National Meet or gaining All American status would be insufficient.   The spirit of the guidelines in  BIO emphasizes that people must be "widely recognized", "well-known", "whose work is widely recognized",  or of "renown or notoriety".   BIO states (bold emphasis mine) "People who satisfy at least one of the items below generally merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them."  In other words, the criteria are not a guarantee for inclusion, but only increase the probability of inclusion:  a person could be the winner of the NCAA National Meet yet also still be completely obscure to the general public, and therefore not worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia.  I went over to www.ncaa.org, and typed in "Beauchman" in the search field; it replied with "No results matched your query".
 * Wookiepedian 21:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wookiepedian 22:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Joe. -- Kinu t /c  02:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wookiepedian's arguments are persuasive. I find  especially so. Ifnord 05:27, 15 August 2006 (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.