Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Wilcher


 * 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 snowball keep. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Wilcher

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Disputed prod. I removed a speedy tag on the basis of comments at the talk page. I disagree with the remover of the prod that the source given is sufficient to necessarily pass our notability criteria for sportspeople, but am happy to be persuaded otherwise. Looks to me like a very good sportsman who didn't quite make it at the top level of athletics or American football and I'm inclined to think he's therefore not quite notable. A debate will no doubt clarify things. Dweller (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepThis article has twenty sources with more coming. When the nominator says "I disagree with the remover of the prod that the source given is sufficient" what does that mean.  Also, "like a very good sportsman who didn't quite make it at the top level of athletics or American football" is not quite appropriate either because his notability is not based on professional accomplishment as outlined at Bio, but instead based on SPORTS.  As a two-time Michigan H.S. Athlete of the year who went on to become a NCAA champion and three-time NCAA All-American he passes this hurdle.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note SPORTS was rejected by the community, as the tag at its head states. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit summary for the prod removal referred to one source in particular, but while it is reliable, it does nothing more than prove college amateur sports career, which doesn't seem to cut the mustard with our notability guideline. It's more than possible that the guideline needs fixing, but I can only go with what is. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I say keep it, sure it could use some work but Mr. Wilcher is recognized as one of the best in the state of Michigan, he also had a respectable college football career and holds numerous MHSAA records in football and track & field. Jake (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep I really see nothing wrong with this at all. Well written and well referenced. Why delete it? michfan2123 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think Wilcher's NCAA and MHSAA track championships make him notable. I note also that the author (a very productive editor) states that he intends to put the time into beefing up the article with additional sources and references.  If the author wants to put the time into this piece, I would not discourage it.Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I'm the one who removed the PROD template. I'm no expert on Wikipedia criteria for sports articles, but it seems to me that Wilcher's record of accomplishments as a two-time Michigan High School Athlete of the year, NCAA track champion, U of Michigan football player, and a successful/influential high school coach add up to the sort of distinctive career that is considered "notable." The issue raised on the talk page was a dearth of "secondary sources published about him." Based on the record of his accomplishments in high school and college (which are documented by reliable secondary sources), I believe that the absence of news media profiles and similar sources is due to the fact that his accomplishments predate the Internet (two decades have passed since he was in college). If he were an active college athlete now, I believe there would be no dispute over his notability because there would be an abundance of recent coverage. --Orlady (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Rationale explanation Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My concern was based on our guideline at Bio. I'll quote it in full: Athletes My concern was that he fails on the first point and on the second too, as the highest level of amateur sports is not college level, nor national, but international. I'm obviously swayed by the number of RS that report on his achievements. Hence my somewhat ambivalent nomination. Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - based on the championships/all-americas. matt91486 (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
 * Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).[8]
 * Note I have begun a thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), observing that to-date 100% of contributors here would appear to differ with our guideline. Please comment there on proposed changes to the guideline, and keep this page for discussion of deletion of this particular article. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I believe that a national champion athlete is notable.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 17:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per all comments so far. Well sourced article about a national champion- amateur, yes, but at the very top end of amateur. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per snowball clause. He was the national amateur champion of the United States in a major sport and 3 time All-American. Being a 3 time All-American means that he was one of the top amateurs. The article is well-referenced by a reliable contributor. Royal broil  03:34, 25 January 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.