Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Prater


 * 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   no consensus. Consensus here seems to generally hold that this individual fails the specific WP:ATHLETE but passes the general notability guideline through sufficient obscure but non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Ultimately, both our guidelines and the opinions of participants here are split, and there is no consensus to delete. Given that the article is adequately sourced to avoid WP:BLP issues, there is no harm in defaulting to keep. ~ mazca  talk 19:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Kyle Prater

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable person who fails WP:ATHLETE. Has yet to compete at college level, let alone professional level. Scjessey (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears this article was deleted under CSD criteria (I'm somewhat surprised at this) immediately after I filed this nomination. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are other pages about athletes who haven't competed at a collge level that have been around for awhile such as Michael Gilchrist, Seantrel Henderson, and Brandon Knight So I dont see why this one is up for deletion. it has sources that make him notable. Ice (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete (I speedied the article but have recreated it per requests). There are lots and lots of high school athletes who get rated as prospects and signed to college scholarships.  Some of them get injured, or quit, and never even have college careers, let alone pro careers.  Despite the news coverage of Mr. Prater, I don't think that high school athletes should be considered notable merely because they're college prospects.  NawlinWiki (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ATHLETE. If this kids gets hurt we're stuck with an article about a kid who wasn't even an All-State player in Illinois, let alone close to being a really top national player at his position, given that notability is forever. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, since it easily meets WP:ATHLETE due to his All-American status and nation-wide coverage (Chicago Tribune, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, ...). Plus there have been similar AfD discussions in the past, and the result was always keep (see Arthur Brown, Tre` Newton, etc.). End of discussion. --bender235 (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC) P.S. @LonelyBeacon: What do you mean with "let alone close to being a really top national player at his position"? Prater is ranked #1 by Rivals, #2 by Scout.com, and #3 by Takkle among wide receivers in his class nationwide. --bender235 (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the All-State listings for Illinois, and this guy is not mentioned. I'm not sure what these national rankings folks are looking at, but the coaches who saw him locally sure didn't seem to think that much of him ... that's just to explain where I am coming from ... he may be good, but I find it odd that people who have never really seen him rank him so highly, and people who have seen him don't.  Though that's neither here nor there.
 * BTW ... which of the two criteria of WP:ATHLETE does he meet: the part that says he competed at the professional level, or the part that says he competed at the highest possible amateur level, absent a more professional level (like in Olympic sports)?  This guy doesn't come close to meeting the athlete criteria There are two criteria for WP:ATHLETE and I don't see this guy meeting either one ... I think the only argument for inclusion is the general notability guideline, but in my opinion, that guideline was not there to protect articles for college or high school athletes, unless they have done something so truly extraordinary that there is persistent multiple coverage (like win the Heisman, set a major national collegiate record, etc) ... not just coverage on a dedicated website or two. I'll admit that this is a gray area, but I just can't think that we are opening wikipedia to so many high school athletes that have earned local coverage. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sports Illustrated is not a local publication. Neither is the Los Angeles Times. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The LA Times link is to a local Chicago Tribune wire story ... the point I was making is that there are tens of thousands of high school athletes that meet the general notability guidelines because they are covered by their local newspapers week after week. However I think that the intent of guidelines like WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE is to guide the thinking of the GNG ... quoting from WP:BIO:
 * This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. and This notability guideline for biographies is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice ...
 * so to say that BIO (ATHLETE) should be ignored means that we are ignoring the community consensus, or that we have an occasional exception. We know that the first case is not a good idea.  All-Americans and the opinions of national high school publications are not occasional exceptions .... every year there are always new top rated national badminton players or volleyball players, etc.  This article being a breach of community consensus, and not an "occasional exception", from where I am standing, does not give the article the notability required to stay. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you consider Sports Illustrated, and ESPN to be local sources too? In any case, there is nothing wrong with local sources, especially when the newspaper is the Chicago Tribune, which is a major newspaper that has a reputation for fact-checking. There is no policy or guideline that excludes local sources. You write that the "keep" voters here are ignoring Notability (people) (abbreviated WP:BIO) because we are ignoring WP:ATHLETE. That is not true. The "keep" votes believe that this article does pass Notability (people), which states that: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." In this situation, the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources so the article should be kept. Not only has the subject received local coverage, he has also received coverage from national publications such as Sports Illustrated and ESPN. As I said below, WP:GNG supersedes WP:ATHLETE. As said at a recent DRV, "WP:ATHLETE is a great argument for retention, but an awful one for deletion, especially if the article provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate that it meets general notability guidelines as is the case here." Wikipedia is not paper; because Kyle Prater is notable for his achievements (such as All-American status) during his high school career and for the many reliable sources he has received, the article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (indent)Of course SI and ESPN are not local, and of course there is nothing wrong with using local sources for establishing notability (I probably use more local sources than national sources in my editing). I am simply putting forth that the overall Wikipedia community has established a consensus on this:  professional athletes are notable, and athletes that have reached the highest level of amateur competition are notable.  That's not my opinion -- that is the consensus of the community established through the WP:BIO guideline.  Are there to be exceptions?  Sure.  I could certainly belive that there are those very rare exception high school athletes who break national or international records and earn notability under the "exception" guideline.  The people pushing for "keep" are arguing that this person reaches notability by not being exceptional ... he happened to top a couple of national opinion polls.
 * However, since the WP:GNG is being brought up, I'll quote from that (specifically, from WP:N): For example, routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article.
 * Now there could be some debate on what "routine" means, but there is really nothing to sustain this kid's claim to notability. As I noted upthread:  if this kid breaks his leg tomorrow, he will never have anything written about him again.  The same (of course) could be said about a pro athlete, but then again, the community has reached consensus that the accomplishment of being a pro athlete is in and of itself notable enough to merit an article.  All of these Prater articles seem to be centered around a very relatively recent set of events. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that routine coverage of sports would not give rise to notability. But I interpret that routine news coverage to be reporting of high school games.  A full profile where the person is the primary subject of the article is not routine sports news coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete High school players should not have articles unless they are as notable as LeBron James or Jimmy Clausen were.--Yankees10 16:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you think we should accept (High School) All-American status as a level of notability that meets WP:ATHLETE? --bender235 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I frequently read a comment that someone "meets WP:ATHLETE", but it consists of two sentences and a footnote, and I can't see what part of it is applicable here. Persons who are inherently notable under that rule are: "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.[8]  People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships."  The [8] footnote adds "Participation in and, in most cases, winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc."  Which part of WP:ATHLETE does this person qualify under?  Mandsford (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Being a High School All-American qualifies as "highest amateur level" in my mind. You can argue that it is equivalent to a track & field athlete winning an event at a IAAF World Junior Championships in Athletics (e.g. Kirani James, Christopher Clarke, etc.). --bender235 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I believe the article should be kept, the artgument that this represents the highest level of amateur competition for the sport is clearly false. College football wold represent the highest level of amateur competition.  And even then, just playing college football doesn't necessarily grant notability.  The key point in this article is the coverage through newspapers and sports media at a national level.  That makes him notable irrespective of any criteria from WP:ATHLETE. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should keep in mind the age level. Players under the age of 18 usually don't play college football, just like athletes under the age of 18 don't participate in junior world championships (but Youth world championships). Being a HS All-American is the highest amateur level for a player under-18. --bender235 (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And usual outcome of any AFD involving a junior athlete competing at the junior level of competition is that he fails WP:ATHLETE. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhm, no. Check the AfD discussions of Arthur Brown and Tre` Newton for example. --bender235 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know that those two examples you've pointed to show that WP:ATHLETE was what was applied. It appears that the keep arguments in those examples (as with this one here) is that WP:GNG is being met through coverage in reliable sources without any appeal to the policy specific to athletes. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (indent) Just to clarify a point: WP:BIO is not a policy, but rather is a longstanding accepted communitywide guideline, based on the consensus of the Wikipedia community.  There are exceptions to this guideline, as there should be (for example, Jon Scheyer is not covered by WP:ATHLETE, but has had considerable press coverage at the national level, and as such probably deserves an article ... heck, every year's Heisman Trophy winner isn't even covered under WP:ATHLETE, but they are generally considered exceptions).  Based on what I have seen, the application of the exceptions to WP:ATHLETE have applied to rare instances of (at least) college level athletes who have received exceptional coverage at the national level (like national record holders or some such).  I restate that, IMO, this person has not met either of the two conditions of WP:ATHLETE, and irrelevant of the outcome of this discussion, its inclusion is a breach of community consensus.  It seems that I could make these same arguments for a nationally ranked high school football team, but I don't think writing St. Thomas Aquinas High School 2009 football season is an article that will fly around here ... despite the undoubtedly ten times higher amount of reliable sources that you can find for that one team over this one player.  While the GNG is one of the single most important policies around here ... it too has community sanctioned exceptions.  In short:  I think the overall community has spoken already on this matter.  The question in my mind is:  does this individual meet that "rare exception" clause?  To some, this athlete is on the level of Heisman trophy winners, Outland Trophy winners, and others who meet that "rare exception" clause.  I may be in the minority at this discussion, but I stand by that a high school athlete, even a really good top prospect, especially given the permanence of notability, does not meet community consensus for an article unless they accomplish something akin to a major national record ... and even that seems a bit odd for an encyclopedia ... one wouldn't normally pick up a football encyclopedia and find the top high school players in there. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You repeatedly say that ignoring WP:ATHLETE in this situation is against community consensus; however, that is not the case. When a person has received significant coverage in reliable sources, none of which are "routine sports coverage", the person passes the inclusion guidelines. If this article were deleted, we would be ignoring WP:BIO and WP:GNG, which hold precedent over WP:ATHLETE. Cunard (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ATHLETE is a subsection of WP:BIO. WP:BIO has no precedence over WP:ATHLETE;  ATHLETE is a part of BIO.  Given that we have established that this person does not meet the two standards of ATHLETE, let me quote:
 * (Bio): This notability guideline for biographies is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed.
 * So, given that WP:BIO/ATHLETE reflects the consensus of the community, and that there seems to be a general consensus here that this athlete fails WP:BIO/ATHLETE (because a lot of folks are saying how GNG supersedes BIO/ATHLETE; something that wouldn't have to be said if this person met BIO/ATHLETE), I have a hard time seeing how this is not violating the consensus of the greater community.
 * WP:CONSENSUS is a policy along side GNG. Quoting from there (specifically WP:CONLIMITED): Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.  I would think that we here represent a limited group of editors, and BIO/ATHLETE represents a greater community consensus.  I restate:  I am not seeing that this athlete fits into the exception noted in the guideline.
 * You are wrong that the subject fails WP:BIO. He passes BIO (A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.), which supersedes BIO. Because community consensus has indicated that people who pass any criteria set out by WP:BIO are notable, this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:ATHLETE is supplemental and does not replace WP:GNG. The coverage in reliable sources is sufficient to establish notability, as multiple independent reliable sources have taken note of this individual. -- Whpq (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by . Notability is fully established because WP:GNG supersedes WP:ATHLETE. Kyle Prater is notable for his accomplishments as a high school athlete. Per bender235, "Prater is ranked #1 by Rivals, #2 by Scout.com, and #3 by Takkle among wide receivers in his class nationwide." These significant accomplishments clearly show that Prater warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, a high school player who is "ranked" by some ranking sites does not deserve an article. The sources are not acceptable, reliable sources to allow this article under the GNG, they are highly specialized directories. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Directory sites are unacceptable, but the Chicago Tribune, Sports Illustrated, and ESPN are all valid reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * God lord Delete He's in high school. Also references in article insufficient to establish WP:N.  Grsz 11  05:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:VAGUEWAVE, I ask that you explain how the sources I provided in my response to are insufficient. While I deem most high schoolers to be non-notable, many high schoolers have received the coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:N, for an example of a middle schooler, see Zach Bonner. The subject's All-American status, sourced by this article, provides further evidence of notability. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Does not meet BIO/ATHLETE, and the coverage of him does not meet GNG, as it is restricted to narrow discussion of non-notable athletic accomplishments.  THF (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Closer: please note the failure of this article to meet WP:PERSISTENCE in evaluating the arguments. THF (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that reliable sources, such as Sports Illustrated, Chicago Tribune, and ESPN, discuss these athletic accomplishments establishes that these accomplishments are not "non-notable". GNG is met. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trib source is a blog, the others are online specialized sports columns "Inside recruiting" or "ESPNrise" and are unconvincing. They say things that can't make anybody notable, it boils down to "he plays high school sports really well." Abductive  (reasoning) 08:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Reliable sources, blogs from newspaper writers that are subjected to editorial control are valid sources. Sports columns from reliable sources are sufficient to establish notability. When high school athletes garner the necessary media coverage they are notable. If high schools sports were insignificant in the United States, ESPN and Sporting News would not devote numerous articles to high school athletes. While it can be argued that high school athletes, by virtue of their youth, are inherently non-notable, this argument is invalid because national publications deem the subject's accomplishments to be worthy of reporting. Although you disqualify the perfectly valid sources presented above, there are numerous other sources about the subject. The New York Times deems college recruits notable enough to devote an article about Prater and his fellow U.S.C. recruits. He also received coverage from Sun-Times Media Group. Cunard (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mentions in passing do not constitute substantive coverage per GNG or BIO. What's the hurry? He'll be notable in two or three years if your crystal ball is true, and if not, he won't be encyclopedic. Or are you planning on finding the #13 prospect from 1975 and writing an article about him? THF (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that passing mentions are insufficient to establish notability; the sources I provided in the discussion provide significant, nontrivial coverage about the subject: Chicago Tribune, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, and Sun-Times Media Group. I am not making any crystal ball arguments, so that argument is inapplicable. An article about the #13 prospect from 1975 is certainly viable, but only if he has received the requisite coverage in reliable sources. In Kyle Prater's case, national publications have taken note of his accomplishments, thus ensuring that he is notable. Cunard (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue here is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERSISTENCE. That a lot of sources have a single paragraph about a ranking or two or the recruiting of a particular high-school athlete doesn't make it encyclopedic: six years from now, no one is going to care what Prater's high-school ranking was unless he turns out to be notable for other reasons.  Again, WP:CHILL.  If Prater turns out to be notable, there can be an article about him then.  Right now, he's not. THF (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because there is much coverage in reliable sources that spans over a year: • Scout : May 7, 2007 • Scout : January 13, 2009 • Scout : January 25, 2009 • Chicago Tribune : April 15, 2009 • ESPN : July 22, 2009 • Sports Illustrated : July 27, 2009 • Sun-Times Media Group : August 10, 2009 • ESPN : January 9, 2010 • Chicago Tribune • ESPN : January 13, 2010
 * Furthermore, Prater is the main topic of the articles, as evinced by their titles: • Prater Up to Six Offers • Kyle Prater Talks About His ND Offer • Proviso West's Kyle Prater rated the No. 1 receiver in the nation • Sales pitches keep coming as top WR Prater narrows list to five • Prater receiving serious attention • Prater backs off commitment to USC • Proviso West's Prater sticks with USC • Football: Proviso West's Kyle Prater picks USC again, will move to Los Angeles this weekend The persistent coverage in reliable sources from multiple publications proves that Prater is clearly notable. Cunard (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think there is confusion here. I don't think anyone is saying: "delete this article because this is only a kid".  Age is wholly irrelevant.  There are certainly plenty of articles on Wikipedia regarding people under the age of 18 who have accomplished a great deal, and have met a threshold of notability.  Brining up Zach Bonner, he accomplished something that was at the level that anyone in the world could do.  However, I think it is an exceptional strectch to say that the accomplishments of a high school football player is on the same level as a professional football player.  This is not about ageism. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that a person's age should not disqualify him from attaining notability and thank you for clarifying that. The subject, as was mentioned above, has several notable accomplishments, namely being named to the All-American team and receiving nation-wide coverage. While these accomplishments are clearly not on par with a professional athlete, they are notable in that national publications have accorded them coverage. In your analysis of Zach Bonner, you seem to misunderstand notability. As wrote in his essay, notability is not being unique, famous, or important; notability should be judged by the depth of coverage in reliable sources. As encyclopedia writers, we should not judge the notability of people's accomplishments by our own standards: we should judge their accomplishments by how professional journalists have judged them. From the numerous sources provided in this discussion, the subject's accomplishments do indeed allow him to pass Notability and Notability (biographies). Cunard (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep He is an All-American receiver who is going to be a college student next week, so he shouldnt be considered a high school athlete anymore. Ice (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. We don't exclude notable subjects because of their age or non-professional status. This subject clearly meets the general notability guideline. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Coverage is either local to Chicago or from specialized scouting websites. Subject does not pass the GNG. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ESPN and Sports Illustrated are national general sports media, and as such are neither local, nor specialised scouting sites. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2010 (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.