Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Schommer


 * 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   delete. Very close call, but seems outside of current guidelines Nja 247 08:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Nick Schommer

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE as never playing professional football or at the highest amatuer level, ie NCAA Division I FBS. Additionally, no significant coverage in independent/third-party reliable sources. Can be recreated if/when he plays professionally or otherwise obtains notability.  Grsz 11  23:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Being drafted is certaintly notable.-- Giants27 T/  C  00:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No it's not.  TJ   Spyke   00:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is.-- Giants27 T/  C  01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good one. But where does it say that?  Grsz 11  01:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Use common sense.-- Giants27 T/  C  01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being drafted should ensure notability.► Chris Nelson Holla! 00:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, see WP:ATHLETE.  TJ   Spyke   00:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should, but right now it doesn't.  Grsz 11  00:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If we consider being drafted as a measure of notability, then do we consider all drafted players of other sports notable? In baseball, that is 30 teams, 50 rounds or more, so at least 1500 players per year, many of whom will not sign a contract, and most of whom will never have careers outside of the minor leagues. Eauhomme (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Trivial third party mentions and just being drafted is not notable.  TJ   Spyke   00:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Then we should change the policy...► Chris Nelson Holla! 00:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Bring it up somewhere if you wish, probably would be the Village pump.  Grsz 11  00:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (per current guidelines). This guy presents a weaker case than the other three pending college football discussions (John Nalbone, James Wyche, and Kevin Simon).  I have found no substantial coverage focusing on Schommer in the mainstream media.  Even a NewsBank search of Nort Dakota papers turned up nothing significant.  (The two pages linked in the article are to press releases from the university, not coverage in the mainstream media.)  Under current policy, being drafted does not by itself establish notability.  And Schommer was the 242nd pick -- a very, very late pick.  I agree that first-round (and 2nd- and 3rd-round) draft picks would be notable, and those players are typically the subject of extensive media coverage establishing notability.  As you drop into the late rounds, media coverage is less extensive and notability becomes iffy.  At this stage, I'd favor deleting Schommer. Cbl62 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  Cbl62 (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep he is now a professional football player--Yankees10 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When has he played or even signed a contract?  Grsz 11  01:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter he was drafted which should be in WP:ATHLETE.-- Giants27 T/  C  01:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But it isn't...that's the point.  Grsz 11  01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So why not discuss this instead of nominating all of these articles for deletion.--Yankees10 02:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one saying it should be changed.  Grsz 11  02:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Very little media coverage and at this point, as he's not actually signed a contract with the team, we're also looking at WP:CRYSTAL as draftees in football (and especially baseball) are not certain to become notable later. I'd recommend the creator revisit the article on a future date. DSZ (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment You can't even compare being drafted in the NFL and being drafted in baseball. The NFL draft is only 256 players, and most do play professionally. The MLB Draft is 50 rounds, over 1,500 and tons of them never make it to to the majors. I'm of the belief that simply being drafted in the NFL makes one notable enough, and that WP:ATHLETE needs to be amended to reflect that.► Chris Nelson Holla! 05:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This isn't the place to discuss the standards of WP:ATHLETE, but to enforce the standards actually in place. As such, simply being drafted does not confer notability.  A drafted player *can* be notable, but it doesn't appear so in this case.  Simply saying that you wish the standards were different is not a convincing argument, it's comparable to me going to the IRS and saying that I don't owe what they think because I feel the 25% tax bracket should start at a higher level of income.DSZ (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC).


 * Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. If you disagree with that policy, then by all means discuss it elsewhere. If the policy changes, the article could perhaps be restored. For now, it does not meet policy requirements.  Chzz  ►  07:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nicely said. ;) Cheers.  I 'mperator 13:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that WP:Athlete is not a policy. Its a guideline. Articles are absolutely required to meet these standards, but AfD always seems to use them like holy writ. I don't disagree with the delete, but I just needed to clarify. Livewireo (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree, we're talking about guidelines, but in this case, the guidelines in place are to make the standards for notability *lower* for professional athletes. If that guideline is ignored, then the standards for Schommer's inclusion become more strict, not more lax.DSZ (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - NFL and NBA are special cases. If you are drafted in either league, you are going to play at least one game. If anyone doesn't read WP:ATHLETE as supporting creation of articles of all NFL and NBA draft picks, then WP:ATHLETE is wrong and needs to be updated to be in line with our actual practices. --B (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment* - This is not true. Quite a lot of players in the NFL draft never play in a single game in the NFL.  Even in the much smaller NBA draft, a lot of players drafted never play in the NBA.  For the latter, it's 14 of 60 for 2007, 8 of 60 for 2006, 5 of 60 for 2005, and 13 of 60 in 2004.  Clearly, being drafted by the NBA does not make it almost certain that the player will play in the NBA, thus making the notability conferred by playing in the NBA not automatically extend to draftees.  I notice that none of the people complaining about WP:ATHLETE is even bothering to raise the issue in the appropriate area.  If anything, the consensus is moving towards making WP:ATHLETE more restrictive, not less.DSZ (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that is really relevant, considering that basketball is so fundamentally different from American football. For example, there are significantly fewer starting positions on a basketball team, and there are also two fewer teams in the NBA compared with the NFL. The risk of injury is also far greater in football and requires deeper reserves and significantly shortens the careers of players at almost every position. Strikehold (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the case of the NBA, how many of those players that you cited that didn't play in the NBA didn't play in a fully professional league in some other country? (which also would meet WP:ATHLETE) --B (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being selected in the draft should at least give him a 'stay of deletion' until the end of the 2009 season. "Quite a lot" NFL draftees not playing a game has no bearing, and I believe that most do end up playing. An NFL team has strongly shown its intentions of at least putting them on their team. To delete now when he may very well play in a few months is bureaucracy for its own sake. Strikehold (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Quite a lot of NFL draftees not playing absolutely has bearing under WP:CRYSTAL. The standard isn't "probably" going to happen or "likely" going to happen.  The standard is "almost certain."  That Schommer is probably going to notable in the future is not enough to satisfy the standards.DSZ (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... what? You were the one who said "quite a lot of NFL draftees" don't ever play, and I agree, that is a crystal ball rationale. Saying that an NFL team showed confidence in the player's ability by expending a draft selection on him is not, that is a fact. Strikehold (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe what he is saying, is drafting is a form of speculation and speculation is exactly what WP:CRYSTAL says to avoid. -Djsasso (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Crystal says that Wikipedia should not speculate. What the actual NFL franchises themselves "speculate" on by making actual commitments, does not fall under that. Strikehold (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are partly right, which is why draft articles are ok, because they have already happened. However articles for the players themselves, and the comment that they are likely to play violates "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." It is not almost certain that a drafted player will play in the NFL. Especially not one so far down in the draft. -Djsasso (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and is a case o WP:CRYSTAL. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally and/or otherwise meets WP:N. -Djsasso (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:ATHLETE is meant to be an inclusive criteria, not exclusive. I believe he has enough coverage about him to satisfy the basic criteria of WP:BIO.Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Trivial mentions that he was drafted do no meet WP:N requirements. -Djsasso (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: These articles do not look like merely trivial mentions to me. . Further, the brief mentions in multiple other articles about his exploits during his college baseball and football careers convinces me that he satisfies WP:BIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Local news sources isn't "significant coverage" Secret account 12:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to what policy/guideline? The guideline WP:BIO, to which you refer, uses "significant coverage" to mean the extent of the coverage by reliable sources, it makes no distinction as to whether they are "local" or not. Are the New York Times, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune "local sources"? Each of those do significant local reporting, and each one is also considered among the finest news publications in the world. I, for one, would trust the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung for accurate reporting on German issues far more than, say, the Los Angeles Times. Now, I'm not comparing the Pierce County Herald to any of those, but am illustrating the point that there is not, nor should there be, a distinction requiring non-"local" sources be used. Strikehold (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:N, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Your local newspaper isn't a high quality source compared to the ones you mention. This is one of those cases, one or two local news stories doesn't cut it.  Grsz 11  21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, that is one possible interpretation of what you quote. However, there is nothing that says that local sources or small newspapers are unreliable (or of "lower quality", as you assert). In fact, like I said previously, local sources can be better than, let's say, "global" or "national" sources depending on the topic (FAZ vs. the LA Times is an example on a larger scale). Different publications have different specialties. For a player at a small college not located near a large city with a "major" paper, I'd say that is the case here. Fargo, a small city of 100,000 where NDSU is, is 200 miles from Minneapolis (which doesn't have a "national" newspaper) and 600 miles from Kansas City, Denver, and Chicago (which do). I don't think Schommer is a slam dunk for notability, but I think there's enough leeway from the sources in addition to being drafted to keep it. Strikehold (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Being drafted doesn't mean instant notabilty, but he has a high chance of making to the NFL. If he gets cut during training camp, than we can renominate this article for discussion. Secret account 20:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In second thoughts Delete per sourcing concerns, I don't consider local news stories to be "sigificant coverage", and if he makes the final roster, it can always be undeleted without controversy, and another hellish AFD. Secret account 12:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete he has not "competed at the fully professional level of [his] sport" to satisfy WP:ATHLETE. If he plays, on the first game of the regular season or any time thereaftere, then the article can be re-created.  black ngold29  21:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - WP:ATHLETE is not a policy.► Chris Nelson Holla! 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's part of WP:BIO which is policy. Secret account 21:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * not "Policy", but a guideline, and therefore to be interpreted flexibly. DGG (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, being drafted is not inherently notable, and there is nothing else in the article that would indicate any sort of notability for the encyclopedia. Wizardman  22:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The rule that one has to actually play for the team is a very good one, and has general consensus for all sports. DGG (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep fails WP:ATHLETE. Passes WP:N per Morbidthoughts's links.  Those arguing against passing WP:ATHLETE in one breath because he doesn't technically meet it should probably also note that neither WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:RS consider local sources to be incapable of being "significant".  That's not an argument based in those guidelines. Hobit (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment All but two of those articles are trivial mention.  Grsz 11  20:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I only looked at the two he provided above. They are articles solely on the topic and so meet WP:N pretty easily (and therefor WP:BIO etc.). Any additional trivial mentions are mildly helpful to the case, but the two linked above are enough in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If he made the final roster for one game- has ANY pro stats at all- keep him. I would give all drafted players 1 year past thier class, they can be signed later on. David.snipes (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "If he made the final roster for one game- has ANY pro stats at all- keep him." – He hasn't.  Grsz 11  01:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As per my above comment, drafted or signed players are not by themselves notable until they actually play a game. We cannot make exceptions for certain sports or leagues, as that becomes too unwieldy. I can tell you that there are many players drafted for baseball, not as many for football or basketball--so do we call football and basketball players who are drafted notable? Sounds very Americocentric if we don't also have rules in place for Rugby, Cricket, Aussie Football, Soccer, or the myriad other professional team sports. Let's keep it simple and wait until he plays his way into notability. Eauhomme (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE, but more importantly WP:RS. No significant coverage is available. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:33, 3 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.