Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesphin Forrester


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mesphin Forrester

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE, non-notable college career and went undrafted. Giants27 T/  C  23:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  – Giants27  T/  C  00:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  – Giants27  T/  C  00:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not pass WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE. We all have to stop creating these articles so quickly.► Chris Nelson Holla! 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE as he has "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport": in American football, that is Division I FBS. Good evidence for WP:BIO as well, with good amount of media coverage. Feature articles in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Herald, Rivals, Scout, Scout (2). Shorter but significant coverage in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (2), Seattle Times and Kitsap Sun. Strikehold (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Local coverage is to be expected of college athletes. He's still not a particularly notable one to this point and he certainly is a long shot to have a pro career.► Chris Nelson Holla! 04:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no proscription against so-called "local" coverage in WP:GNG or WP:BIO. And the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seattle Times have circulations over 400,000 -- these aren't small-town newspapers . Strikehold (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per numerous feature articles cited by Strikehold. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is one of the leading papers in the Western United States. Whether he's a long-shot to make the NFL is irrelevant.  As noted in prior discussions, playing a game in the NFL is an automatic ticket to notability, but a college football player can be notable without playing in the NFL if, as here, he has received significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream press.  This is more than sufficient to establish notability under the general guidelines. Cbl62 (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - That's hardly what I'd call "significant coverage." Also, WP:ATHLETE is referring to individual sports and the Olympic Games, not college football when it talks about the "highest amateur level of a sport." D-I football is not included in that and never was meant to be.► Chris Nelson Holla! 06:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Multiple feature articles solely about the subject in publications with hundreds of thousands of readers is not "significant coverage"? And your interpretation of WP:ATHLETE is just that: an interpretation. You, not having been the sole author yourself, are not really in a position to state with surety what WP:ATHLETE "mean[s] to" include. It says nothing about applying exclusively to "individual sports" or the Olympics or excluding college football; to say as much is pure extrapolation (and arbitrary). Notwithstanding, with either interpretation, the existence of a professional level does not negate the notability of college football (see: WP:CFBATHLETE for further discussion). Strikehold (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete non notable person--Yankees10 22:32, 5 May 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.