Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macho Harris


 * 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. yandman 10:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Macho Harris

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

Non-notable athlete see WP:ATH and WP:BIO. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief, he's obviously notable. It's pretty universally agreed that he will be a second round pick in this April's NFL draft.  He was first team all ACC his senior year .  There are a gracious plenty secondary sources to demonstrate notability . --B (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources are just one aspect of notability, and with sport much of those sources are simply gamenotes and recaps. In all the other college and amatuer sports players are generally not notable even if they are expected to go high in the drafts of their sports. BUT since the NFL draft is comming up, it might be easier to keep the article. If he is expected to go so high in the draft then it should be noted and sourced in the article (as an explaination of notablility).--Bhockey10 (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of them are game recaps??? On the list of Google news stories I linked above, NOT A SINGLE HIT on the first two pages is a game recap. , , , and  - the first four hits from that results list - are all articles about Macho Harris himself, not about the team, not about a game, but about the player personally.  Those alone are more than sufficient and you've got 50 pages more of the same. --B (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) There's a few on page two, most are local articles, others are columns blogs are articles about the team that mention Harris and/or quote him on a game. 2) Just because he's a big player at the school and local area doesn't mean he's internationally notable on wikipedia. If the top players on every college team had articles there would be 1000s of articles of good college players but non-notable elsewhere. It's pretty much been consensus in past AfDs that college athletes and college football players are generally not notable until turning pro (at the very least until they are drafted). 3) All of the other college sports delete articles on players, even the top prospect players. Players like this could go high in the draft or (I've seen some articles where he's not even in the top 10, all that falls under speculation i.e. WP:NOTCRYSTAL.--Bhockey10 (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Virginian Pilot is on the complete opposite side of the state. The Richmond Times Dispatch is a completely different market and about a 3+ hour drive up I-81 and over I-64.  ESPN is national.  The only local ones I see are WSLS and the Roanoke Times.  The Washington Post (Washington DC is a good 5 hour drive from Blacksburg, depending on how bad I-66 is) did a profile on him .  The only consensus in past AFDs is that college players who do not meet the general notability criterion are not notable.  College players who do meet it (ie, there are multiple reliable sources of information about them independent of the source) are notable.  As for other college sports - they don't really matter.  There are two college sports where every game is the subject of multiple articles, virtually every game is televised, and a substantial number of players are profiled in the news: college football and college basketball.  Only in extremely rare cases would a college athlete from another sport be notable ... but for football and basketball, well-known starters at major schools are going to blow away our notability criterion and are probably more notable than professional athletes in other American sports. --B (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'll let you in on a secret page - User:B/NCAA data. This page contains a list of pages that link to Infobox NCAA Athlete or Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer.  Substantially all of them are (or were, as of the creation of the list) college athletes.  I occasionally update the list and patrol the pages therein for vandalism, puffery, and articles about somebody's non-notable 4th string kicker who is hoping that he will make the dress squad sometime in a couple of years. --B (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you're not good and editing or finding non-notable athletes. That list is bad! should change the name to list of non-notable and marginally notable athletes I just don't think players should be notable because of their sport. Harris looks like a good player but has he won any national awards, been in a major play in a bowl game, changed how college football is played, etc...What makes this good player notable amoung the many good college players. --Bhockey10 (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A player who sets foot on an MLB baseball field and plays 30 seconds of one game is considered notable and it isn't even a subject for debate - MLB is the highest level of professional baseball and so someone who plays it is inherently notable according to our definitions. On the other hand, college football is the second most popular American sport behind the NFL in terms of TV ratings.  Ratings for the top college bowls beat the World Series television ratings and it isn't even close.  For regular season games, it's even more of a blowout.  A college football player like Harris, who is profiled in multiple media outlets and is a star player is not "marginally notable".  I'm not interested in having articles about every single player, but a star player for a BCS team ought to be included. --B (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll the 30 second senario would be an interesting AfD debate, Looking at many of the sources for Macho Harris only a couple are ESPN, and most are media markets within a few hrs of VT. Like I've said players should NOT be notable because of their sport. What makes this good player notable amoung the many good college players? the answer to that is nothing, he's not a heisman winner, hasn't changed football, and probably won't be remembered for his college playing time in a few years.--Bhockey10 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "players should be not notable because of their sport". Fine.  College football is more notable than major league baseball, major league soccer, etc, so I would say Harris meets that qualification as well.  As for the sources ... "only a couple are ESPN"?  So?  Even if you ignore everything else, just ESPN sources are more than sufficient to establish notability.  .  There's also an article the NYT's Herald Tribune on him - .  The standard is significant coverage independent of the subject.  Even the Roanoke media (45 minutes away) meets that standard.  The standard isn't, "newspapers on the other side of the planet regularly cover him".  Other regional media outlets have profiled him.  National media outlets (Washington Post, New York Times, ESPN) have profiled him.  By any conceivable standard, this player is notable. --B (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The one article from NY is about him in a fire, ok let's give everyone who got burned an article too. a couple of those ESPN sources are articles, yes, but some are blogs, and opionion columns- not reliable sources. --Bhockey10 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if the New York Times considers a fire in Virginia significant enough to have an article about, then maybe there should be an article about it. Chances are, they aren't going to do a profile on a non-notable burn victim from Virginia.  Your demand for sources is a ludicrous moving target.  There are over 500 hits in google news for his name.  That should tell you something right there.  Throw out the local ones, throw out the regional ones (both of which are actually acceptable sources, but we're throwing them out anyway), throw out the blogs (which, by the way, an ESPN blog is a reliable source - Some random Joe Sixpack's blog is not, but an ESPN blog is peer reviewed and meets our standards), throw out the New York Times article because you don't consider it important, and there's still plenty left. --B (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. College American footballer doesn't confer notability in itself, but public interest from the professional sport certainly does. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Doesn't need the WP:ATH presumption, notability easily established. Townlake (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep- meets WP:GNG per the sources dug up by B. It doesn't matter if he meets additional criteria if he meets GNG. ESPN and the Washington Post are VERY clear examples of independent, third party sources. SMSpivey (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added those sources found by B to the article.SMSpivey (talk) 18:48, 4 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.