Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Abiamiri


 * 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 Cool Hand Luke 22:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Victor Abiamiri

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Tagged for speedy deletion and then contested. I don't think this meets the CSD A7 criteria, but I also don't think the subject meets WP:BIO at this time.--Isotope23 02:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Absolutely does not meet CSD, and meets WP:BIO because of the sports athlete clause in addition to being rated highly in numerous reputable sports magazines (thus meeting the primary subject of multiple non-trivial sources clause).  —bbatsell  ¿?  02:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a bit of devil's advocacy here (I have no strong opinion either way here, this was just a procedural listing), but that isn't actually what WP:BIO says. It says "Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level."  I don't think any of the sources are reporting that he is playing in a fully professional league.  I still don't see that he meets WP:BIO, but as Montco pointed out below, college atheletes are a fine line and WP:BIO is a guideline, not a hard rule.--Isotope23 14:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That iteration of "fully professional league or at the highest level" is used to shorten what was previous established as notable, which states, word-for-word, "including college sports in the United States." It's not limited to "fully professional league."  —bbatsell  ¿?  21:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is more of a WP:BIO observation but "at the highest level" is lousy shorthand for "including college sports in the United States" because in the case of several sports, college would not necessarily constitute "the highest level".--Isotope23 02:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep College athletes are a fine line.  If he was a backup at Northeast Arkansas Pig Farmer and Teachers College, I could easily support a delete.  But in this case the subject is speculated by respected media organizations to be a potential first round draft pick.  If you  wade through all of the Mel Kiper-wannabe fantasy football nerd pages, the sources are there.,,   While some will say thats crystal balling, the major draft watchers are pretty good.  Even without that, he is a three year starter at (and I hate to ever say good things about ND) but a pretty storied and highly-regarded college football program.  Montco 03:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Mildy high profile college athlete on a major college team. --Wildnox(talk) 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, article desperately in want for citations and references. It does not matter if we know if the person is notable, it has to be made sure that those reading it 20 years down the line also understand it Alf photoman 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article now has seven in-line citations to the article. Johntex\talk 07:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep he is expected to be drafted within the first 2 rounds in the 2007 NFL Draft.--Bucs10 01:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Bucs10


 * Delete - nothing in article verifiable per WP:V; thus notability not demonstrated per WP:N. Add cites per WP:CITE and perhaps this can be remedied. CyberAnth 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please don't confuse "not verifiable" with "has not yet been verified". With just a few minutes of work, I've added seven in-line citations to the article. A lack of citations is generally a reason for improving the article, not for supporting deletion of an article. Johntex\talk 07:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete; would retract opinion if notability proved with more independent sources; paticulalry the draft claims. --Robdurbar 16:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Changed to Keep, sources now added and notability confirmed --Robdurbar 08:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * UNBELIEVEABLY STRONG delete Drafting doesn't justify keeping. Delete per nom and CyberAnth. Meets WP:CSD. Fails WP:OR, since there's no relible source. Not notable as per WP:NOTABILITY. Hondasar e  good   ¡Hable conmigo!  23:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per bbatsell ↔NMajdan &bull;talk 21:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate weak keep - No college football players should have an article unless they play in the pros or win a national award/earn All-American status/do something equally notable, PERIOD. Anything past that opens the door for literally hundreds of thousands of articles to be made on college players. But in this case I think it is pretty obvious he is going to be drafted, so deleting this will just mean the article will be recreated after he is, which is pointless.  If he is somehow not drafted, DELETE IMMEDIATELY. VegaDark 22:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The player meets WP:BIO easily and started for 3 years at, arguably, the most notable college football program in the country.--Thomas.macmillan 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. It states that notable people's published works must include all published works.Hondasaregood 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep High profile player at a high profile college football team (perhaps the highest! profile college football team!). -- MECU ≈ talk 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seancp 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this doesn't count. Please add a reason.Hondasaregood 00:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is up to the closing admin what counts and what doesn't. Johntex\talk 06:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - verifiable and notable. Article needs sources, but that is not the same as being unverifiable. Johntex\talk 06:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I added some references to the article from verifiable reliable sources. The article now has more in-line references than our article on Shrimp.  The subject is notable and the article includes numerous verifiable sources. Johntex\talk 07:23, 1 February 2007 (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.