Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Trent


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Morgan Trent

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

Seems to be a non notable American Football player, doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE or WikiProject College football/Notability. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  22:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, definitely notable, he is one of the top prospects for the 2009 NFL Draft.--Yankees10 22:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP is not the place for speculation, see WP:CRYSTAL Jenuk1985  |  Talk  22:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per Yankees10, the draft is in a month the guy is a great football player, oh my bad I forgot the old AFD policy of "he plays in college must not be notable, let's delete", then the guy goes onto become a 10 time pro bowler and hall of famer. Keep, WP:ATHLETE.-- Giants27 T/  C  22:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "The guy is a great football player" - not really establishing notability there. The draft is in a month, *if* he does get picked, then what is the issue with creating the article then? The same situation occurs with music single articles, they get deleted until the single charts, regardless of if it is almost certain of charting, or only a few days before it does so. The same logic must apply here. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What Chris said and there are literally hundreds of these articles all prepared for the draft and they are all great college football players who should have pages anyway.-- Giants27 T/  C  22:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - he might technically not be notable enough now, but I say leave it.► Chris Nelson Holla! 22:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  --  Double Blue  (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Are there sufficient WP:Reliable sources to write a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article? GoogleNews Google I suspect so. With such a recent creation, I recommend a keep and apply tags requesting additional sources rather than a jump to AfD. Double Blue  (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't like when WP:ATHLETE is used as a reason for deletion. That's the "catch-all" that says if a person played in a professional game, then he/she is inherently notable.  I don't believe it's purpose is to exclude people from being "notable".  I do like when WP:ATHLETE is used as both a pro-keep and pro-delete argument in the same AFD.  That tells me it's a poorly-written guideline. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article needs lots of work, but a brief look through Google News results show that there seem to be a couple of reliable independent sources ( and lots from a source called "Wolverine Insider") that cover him in detail which would satisfy the notability criteria.  Camw (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep.  Plenty of sources out there to establish notability.    and others cited above.  Apparently a top cornerback prospect. Cool3 (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the issue... "prospect". Jenuk1985  |  Talk  00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why is that an issue if there are adequate sources for an article? If it's not clear that there are not enough sources, then we invoke WP:N to guide us whether there is a reasonable chance of finding sufficient sources to write an encyclopedic article but if we already know there are likely sufficient sources, we are done; keep it. Double Blue  (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources above (and the one in the article) meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another comment If Trent tears his ACL before the draft and never plays in an NFL game, is he notable? I'm not sure he is.  I don't think his college career is enough to warrant notability. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No he's not, and that's key. He currently does not meet notability guidelines.► Chris Nelson Holla! 04:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete no apparent awards or notability outside his own college. The recent drastic expansion of notability by the people interested in the subject needs to be discussed by the community in a more general manner. 04:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant. He meets general notability guidelines, as shown here: and here:  Umbralcorax (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not really.► Chris Nelson Holla! 05:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Really. Notability guidelines state "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]". Seven sources, all discussing the person, have been linked in this AFD, thus showing his notability. Whether or not he meets the guidelines set out by WP:ATHLETE is meaningless in this context. To put it in perspective- before he was drafted by Cleveland, LeBron James was notable, even though he'd only played in high school up to that point, because he'd met the general guidelines, not because he'd met WP:ATHLETE. Just because Trent isn't a household name like LeBron was at the time, doesn't mean he isn't notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll ask you then, if Trent is injured and never plays in an NFL game, is he notable? If we say he's notable now, he's notable forever.  I think he falls into the case where he's only a starter on a Division I FBS team.  There are currently thousands of those and historically tens of thousands of those.  I think a person has to establish more notability than just being a "starter".  From what I can tell, he's never won a conference player of the week award.  Regardless, the article should be expanded upon.  As it reads now, I see no notability established. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, has a bit.  Combined with a large number of school-paper articles and nfl.com, I think this meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Being a starter in college football should not be the threshold of notability. Some never do anything when they're in college and will just be working day jobs when they're finished.► Chris Nelson Holla! 19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The threshold of notability is not in our hands. It is decided by Reliable sources. If there are significant enough notes in independent sources that we can write a V, NPOV, NOR article, then that is all that is required. We do not need to, nor should we, decide what is or isn't "important" enough for us to cover. Double Blue  (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * it is very much in our hands. We can decide whether or not we want to apply the GNG even for subjects that would otherwise be totally non-notable in any rational way.  We collectively make the policy  here, and the guidelines, and decide on the interpretations, and when to make exceptions.The GNG is not a divine creation, but a possibly convenient tool, and we can decide when to use it. DGG (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree to some extent. For special cases, I can agree.  But for something as common as this (Big 10 football starter) we should be going with a generic set of rules.  We can rewrite WP:Athlete or something.  But until then, I think decisions involving large numbers of articles should be addressed in guideline and policy discussions, not at the individual article level. Hobit (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  — Giants27  T/  C  19:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * DoubleBlue, it's so good we can always count on you to blindly follow policy instead of actually thinking about things logically.► Chris Nelson Holla! 21:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. WP:5P Double Blue  (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's some logical thought from someone else then User:Uncle G/On notability. Double Blue  (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but having news articles written about you should not be the basis for inclusion in this encyclopdia. College football players are going to have mentions in the local papers, that's the way it is. But they still aren't "famous", or necessarily accomplished in their sport (Trent is not) and they could possibly never really become notable. Trent probably will, since he very well may be drafted and could play in the NFL. But right now, he's certainly not an accomplished enough person to be here.► Chris Nelson Holla! 04:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the coverage is not significant enough that a V, NPOV, NOR article can be written, then I agree with you; and you may be right in this case. I did a cursory search and there appeared to be a variety of sources so that combined with the fact that one minute after creation, this article was requested to be speedy deleted and 30 minutes after that sent to AfD but never once tagged to request more sources or notability, or PRODded saying it doesn't appear to meet notability, leaves me with the suggestion that it be kept for now and tagged requesting better sourcing. But that's just my opinion. Double Blue  (talk) 05:21, 8 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.