Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gilchrist


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Gilchrist

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable person who fails WP:ATHLETE. Has yet to compete at college level, let alone professional level. Scjessey (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (without prejudice) - Unless WP:ATHLETE is someday updated to allow notability for well-known high school athletes. For now he just doesn't pass the criteria by definition. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 23:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaning toward keep. WP:ATHLETE isn't the whole story—a person may still meet WP:GNG to be notable.  I admit it seems very early to have an article on this kid, and I'm generally the first to nominate articles about school-age athletes who are supposedly going to be the next big thing.  However, I think I'm pretty much swayed by coverage at ESPN, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and a variety of other places Google News will show you.  I can't go with a full-on "keep" recommendation though because to the extent he's currently notable it's still only because of his future prospects, and, in my mind at least, for encyclopedic purposes that's not the same as being notable for current or past deeds.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 00:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources provided by demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. Since WP:GNG supersedes WP:ATHLETE, this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep High school basketball players occasionally get enough media attention to pass the GNG. Gilchrist has been the primary subject of articles in several national publications, like Sports Illustrated and SLAM. (I used to have a copy of the latter, but I'm not sure what I did with it. You can at least see Gilchrist's name on the cover, though.) Even if he totally flames out and never makes it to the pros, he'll probably be the subject of "Where are they now" stories. Zagalejo^^^ 04:18, 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) 19:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He doesn't really pass WP:ATHLETE as it is written, but that guideline is often ignored in practice in favor of the GNG. A past discussion of interest is Articles for deletion/John Wall (basketball). Zagalejo^^^ 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:ATHLETE is supplemental and does not replace WP:GNG. The coverage in reliabel sources is sufficient to establish notability, as multiple independent reliable sources have taken note of this individual. -- Whpq (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. That's why WP:GNG overrides WP:ATH, so that genuinely notable junior athletes like this guy don't get excluded on the basis of arbitrary criteria. --Mkativerata (talk) 16:24, 15 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.