Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Killebrew


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 07:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Killebrew

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

Non-notable college football player, that doesnt meet WP:Athlete. Yankees10 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability clearly established as a multi-year starter at Texas. Further clarification:  it is well established now that a player need not play in the NFL, CFL or Arena league to be notable (call it the Jason White scenario), so simply using the "any professional league" clause as not meeting WP:Athlete is not a valid criteria in college football (at least at D-I FBS). Let's put the size and signfance of college football into perspective, with this sourced comparison to supposedly "qualified" professional leagues worldwide. --Bobak (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Just because he was a starter at Texas doesnt mean he is notable, if he was a starter at a college like Central Washington would he be notable? The Jason White example does not support the not playing in a professional league notablility card. He automatically has notablility because he won the Heisman and numerous other awards, so it doesnt matter whether he played professionaly or not.--Yankees10 21:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, I think we can agree that being a starter at a program the size and importance of Texas is much more notable that being a player on any CFL or Arena football team, and they're supposedly professional leagues. The WP:Athlete has been problematic when it comes to top-level College football and Men's basketball, so there have been numerous times where this has come up: see Chris Wells or Terrelle Pryor.  The amateur level bar seems to have been constructed to prevent relative nobodies from getting articles, but you can look up a person like Terrelle Pryor or Jimmy Clausen and get plenty of legitimate independent press about them that would establish notability for anyone not in sports, let alone playing at the top level of college athletics which is bigger than German Bundesliga, English Championship League (and only slightly smaller than Premiership). I agree benchwarmers and players with marginal playtime shouldn't be included, but someone who achieved starter-status at Texas (which won a national championship during that period) is notable (as compared to the other Texas players you nominated, which I agree didn't do much of anything to warrant notability).  I wish we had further clarification on college players, but right now we're still stuck with these case-by-case reviews.  I blame what happens when Europeans and/or non-sports fans write the rules.  --Bobak (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - In addition to objectively meeting WP:ATHLETE, this individual meets WP:N by a mile, per the many non-trivial results here. Oren0 (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:N due to significant media coverage, which trumps WP:ATH. WP:ATH are inclusive criteria, used to "add" notability to individuals who may not meet it otherwise, it cannot be used to "take away" notability. Additionally, being a starter at a major Division I FBS school seems to me to satisfy WP:ATH anyway, since Division I FBS is the "highest amateur level" of American football. Strikehold (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  -- Giants27  T/  C  21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- Giants27  T/  C  21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Never played professionally.-- Giants27 T/  C  21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure why playing professionally is relevant, both per WP:N or per WP:ATHLETE (Division I FBS is the "highest amateur level" of football, meaning there is presumed notability). Oren0 (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It says Olympics or World Championships not college football.--Yankees10 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Read it again. "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." Division I FBS football is the highest level of amateur competition in football since there are no Olympics or World Championships.  Also, "usually considered" means those aren't the only two examples.  Additionally, what is your response to the fact that this individual meets the WP:GNG per my link above? Oren0 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously, since when do college football athletes have articles, I have had numerous articles that I have made either deleted or nominated for deletion for this very reason and they are much more notable and have done more than this nobody of a player has. This guy did nothing as a starter at Texas had no chance of making it in the NFL or any other professional league, which is evident in that not even the CFL wants anything to do with this dud, he is a nobody that was lucky enough to be good enough to be a starter for the Longhorns. I have had articles like Morgan Trent, Jamaal Anderson, Dez Bryant, Amobi Okoye, Victor Abiamiri among others be nominated for the very reason that they are college football players that dont have notablity. These are guys that were top prospects for the Draft and star players in college, which this guy clearly wasnt.--Yankees10 22:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because notability has nothing to do with whether someone thinks a player is "good" or not or thinks he has "done anything" in his career, college or otherwise. Killebrew meets WP:N due to non-trivial media coverage. Additionally, in my opinion, you are extrapolating from WP:ATH something that simply isn't there. Every one of those articles you cited survived AFDs. There is simply no argument that Dez Bryant (for example) isn't notable, regardless of what he does or does not do in the NFL. Strikehold (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Notable college football do get articles. Have you thought about why all of the articles you list were kept, many of them overwhelmingly? Just because people have tried to delete articles you created doesn't mean you should try to delete other articles. Oren0 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah college football players that are notable and are expected to get drafted get articles not players that arent expected to do anyting after college. And I want to delete this article because this guy has done nothing not because I am bitter that my articles were nominated or everything--Yankees10 23:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? By that rationale, only NFL players are notable and no undrafted/current college players should have articles, because notability is permanent (they shouldn't get an article on a probationary basis until they get drafted or signed). This school of thought is clearly flawed, see Nile Kinnick, Beanie Wells, Tim Tebow, etc. ad nauseum.... Wikipedia is not based upon skill level or accomplishments. And this certainly isn't "NFLpedia". Kim Kardashian is only "famous for being famous", she hasn't done anything. She is notable though, because of media coverage, i.e. WP:N. Strikehold (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your just not getting my point, this guy has done NOTHING notable and therefore should not have article just because he was a starter for the Texas Longhorns. And no I do not think that undrafted college players should have articles until they spend time during the regular season on a roster--Yankees10 01:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I assure you that I understand your point. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that it contravenes some Wikipedia guidelines, such as WP:N. Clearly, Tim Tebow should have an article, due to the massive amount of media coverage he has received. Click on the link that Oren0 posted in his "Keep" vote to see the coverage on Killebrew. If there is an argument for deletion, it needs to address that. Strikehold (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to have that opinion, but it is not supported by community consensus or policy. This person has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore is notable enough for an article. To give you an example, OJ Mayo had an article when he was still playing high school basketball, despite not having "done anything" yet. He was the subject of coverage when he was in the 7th grade and would have had an article then if Wikipedia had been what it is today. A person's age is irrelevant and their accomplishments are not for us to judge. If sources cover someone, they're notable. Oren0 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How can you compare Tim Tebow to this guy. Tebow should not be even in this discussion. The reason Tebow should have an article is not because of media coverage, its because this guy won the Heisman and numerous other awards and is considered one of the best players in college football history. And OJ Mayo should no way have had an article in high school, nor should Matt Barkley or any other high school baseball, football, or baseball player, unless they have done something that makes them notable.--Yankees10 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it's clear that you don't want to listen to reason. If you think that LeBron James didn't deserve a Wikipedia article until he was drafted, despite being on the front page of every sports page in the country multiple times, then there's no convincing you.  I do suggest that you read WP:N though, and realize that WP:ATHLETE is a subset of that policy. Oren0 (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So how many national publications has Robert Killebrew been on the cover of?► Chris Nelson Holla! 02:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable college athlete with no pro career. Only guy arguing to keep it has only bad arguments where he brings up Heisman winners to compare.► Chris Nelson Holla! 01:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there were actually three people arguing for keep... I never compared Killebrew to Tebow. I merely used him as an example of the flawed logic Yankees has applied here. "No pro career" is not a deletion criterion. Strikehold (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Its not a flawed logic, its been the logic that has been used since the beginning of my time here at Wikipedia back in June of 2006. College athletes with no significance dont deserve having an article.--Yankees10 04:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Its debunked logic that ignores the fact that football isn't like baseball, basketball, soccer or hockey in that it has no minor leagues. Using any non-NFL league (i.e. CFL or Arena) as an analogue is flawed.  With high school players required to wait three years before they can enter the NFL, a rule only recently lightly emulated with the NBA's one year rule, WP:Athlete is painfully flawed for a sport that has no Olympics.  There is an American Football World Cup, but nobody major plays in it because of the restrictions on professionals.  Just compare the revenues: The 44 schools from BCS conferences that played in a bowl game in 2007 had combined revenue of $1.3 billion., Bundesliga, had 2006–07 revenues of €1.3 billion ($1.7 billion). , UK's  Championship league 2005–06 revenues were £318 million ($470 million) (an average of £13 million ($20 million) per club) , and the Euroleague basketball organization has a combined annual revenue of less than $100 million.  Should we then assume no one starting in those leagues are as relevant?  I'm sorry not as many people follow football on Wikipedia, but reality is reality.  --Bobak (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Appears to be enough coverage to meet guidelines. Borderline case. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment How many of those Google articles have you guys read through? All the ones I hit only had one or two passing mentions of Killebrew. As far as I can tell he nowhere near reaches WP:N yet, no matter what level he's playing at Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:55, 30 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.