Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrelle Pryor


 * 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 03:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Terrelle Pryor
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia has come to an understanding of what constitute notable athletes. These guidelines have been discussed and debated extensively and used repeatedly as the foundation for AFD discussions conerning non-notable athletes. Per WP:ATHLETE athletes generally have to fit one of the following two categories to warrant their own article:
 * 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.[9]
 * People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.

This means that eventhough an athlete may receive coverage in their local paper or play at a collegiate level, where they receive coverage for their involvement in a team, they are generally not notable until they play at the highest level. There are several HS and College players who have existing articles.

This is a non-notable college football player who hasn't done anything. He is no more notable than your local newsreporter or councilwoman. Just because there are some articles, doesn't make the player notable. --- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 07:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC) As there appears to be a debate at wp:athlete, I notified them of this ongoing afd


 * Keep Hall Trophy (U.S. Army Player of the Year), PARADE National Player of the Year and All-American, Pete Dawkins Trophy (U.S. Army All-American MVP), received national news coverage. You're generic argument you're using for all of these Afds is absurd. §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  08:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The US Army Player of the Year = Hall Trophy, it has been awarded since 2000. The Pete Dawkins award has been awarded since 2001.  While the awards may have reached the level that the awards have minor notability, winning them doesn't equate to notability (yet.)  Being recognized by PARADE Magazine as player of the year, however, might be---while I know that PARADE is a reputable magazine, I don't know the value of that particular award.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 09:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm quite aware of how college football awards work. How's my mod? I also don't understand the logic that winning a notable award doesn't equate to some notability in and of itself.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  09:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're assessing the value of those awards based on what - your opinion? Note that these are national awards given to only select football players in the country. There are a large number of teenagers who play high school football, and only about 60 players, for example, earn the Parade honor. BlueAg09 (Talk) 10:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of you tried to google him? In order to figure out how notable he is, I mean. Try it! ––bender235 (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Stepshep above. Previous consensus has been that NCAA FBS football players meet WP:ATHLETE, and being starting QB for a major school certainly qualifies there.  The independent sources on him are staggering. Also keep in mind that WP:ATHLETE is just about presumption of notability; an athlete can be notable without meeting it. Oren0 (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Balloonman has nominated several college football players for deletion with the same rationale, so I will post my same rationale to all of his AfDs.) WP:ATHLETE is considered to be an additional criterion to notability, as indicated here: (Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.) Whether this player may or may not meet WP:ATHLETE should not be the question. The basic criteria, as outlined by WP:BIO, is that these players must be the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]. It also says that if the depth of the coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability. Take a look at the sources referenced by the article - do they not meet these requirements? I think they do. BlueAg09 (Talk) 11:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:ATHLETE is an exception to general WP:N requirements, not a replacement of them. There may well be professional athletes that would not meet general notability requirements, see Keith Cash and Kerry Cash but they get in despite no references or reliable sources other than them having played in the NFL.  Conversely, there are athletes who do not meet WP:ATHLETE but do get in under general notability standards.  See Brian Orakpo and Colt McCoy as examples of athletes who have not played at the professional level but have garnered enough notability at the college level to be included.  Pryor seems to be one of those who has reached general notability standards even in high school.  Sergio Kindle is such a player.  Sometimes these players don't make it to the pros, see Robert Strait sometimes they do, see Adrian L. Peterson.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 12:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't like Ohio State. However, Pryor is one of what I expect would be a handful of players who have been so thoroughly covered before entering college to have achieved notability. I support WP:ATHLETE, but players who meet the GNG should have articles as well. Pryor is one of those. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets general notability guidelines, which generally take precedence over specific conditions listed under WP:ATHLETE (which are meant to help establish notability if the general conditions aren't met). -- Zim Zala Bim talk  17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:N, which is merely supplimented by WP:ATHLETE. &mdash; neuro(talk) 20:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If this person did nothing, then how could he have won all the awards that he won? Tavix (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please stop referring to a nonsensical guideline. Taken literally, it means that, say, a standing champion of Europe in marathone who has not yet appeared at Olympics is non-notable, but a #99 in Europe who was spotted at one of countless professional competitions is notable. It may be relevant for indigenous American sports, but hardly for anything else. NVO (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point of WP:ATHLETE. It doesn't say that anyone who doesn't meet it is not notable, only that anyone who does meet it is presumed notable.  Also, if you think the guideline is "nonsensical" then go to WT:BIO and try to get it changed. Oren0 (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what is it doing here, used as a basis for deletion? Maybe I'm not the only one missing the point? Maybe it's not the first time that "guideline" is used as a kill tool? Yes, everybody agrees it's a supplement to WP:N just like WP:N is supplement to WP:RS... in real life it's a kill tool. P.S. If you haven't noticed - both BIO and ATHLETE have been tightly packed lately, - I did speak out there. NVO (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent question. Baloonman has nominated several pages like this that he deems to fail WP:ATHLETE even though IMO they all easily pass WP:N.  Why he is doing this is anyone's guess. Oren0 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An AFD like this is actually good for the article... I regard Balloonman's AFD as a call to improve the text and to insure against further DRs. But it's no excuse for a failed rationale. NVO (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment below, I was going on what appears to be an outdated mode of thinking. ATHLETE/BIO was, at one time, interpretted much stricter---there have been articles of people who were drafted deleted in the past because they hadn't played at a professional level.  That appears to have changed, and I'm fine with these being closed as consensus seems to have changed.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 20:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep These are getting absurd. Tool2Die4 (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Extra Strong Keep Ask yourself one question here. Is Terrelle Pryor a notable athlete? In this era of sports, is the number one high school player in the country a notable athlete? IS THE STARTING QUARTERBACK FOR THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY A NOTABLE ATHLETE? I THE FRESHMEN OF THE YEAR A NOTABLE ATHLETE? The answers to all these questions are beyond obvious. This is not an exception, being an exception has nothing to do with it. And to delete this based on an interpretation of rules would be to say college football players are not notable athletes. That would say Heisman trophy winners who are still playing (ala Tim Tebow and Sam Bradford, the quarterbacks playing for the national championship) are not notable. And you cannot tell anyone, with maybe the exception of the Olympics, that there is higher level of amateur competition than Division-1 college football. So the idea of deleting an article on Terrelle Pryor based on notability is ridiculous.
 * Keep WP:N trumps WP:ATHLETE. I expect every competent administrator to know this. SashaNein (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - "This is a non-notable college football player who hasn't done anything." While Balloonman is a fine editor, I vehemently disagree in this case. Just being the starting quarterback for Ohio State, one of the top teams in the country, means that he's done something. College football is nearly as popular in the U.S. as the NFL, and saying that he hasn't done anything doesn't reflect what people who follow sports here think. Anyway, Pryor meets the general notability guideline easily, so he should be kept. Perhaps the guidelines should be looked at.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Super Strong Keep Come on now this definetely meets WP:ATHLETE.--  Iamawesome  800  23:54, 15 December 2008 (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.