Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jermie Calhoun

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The result was WITHDRAWN - Nominator endorses early closure. ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jermie Calhoun

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[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not up to you who has or has not "done something." WP:ATHLETE is only about presumption of notability, and the seven non-trivial sources on this page and the dozens more one finds when googling make this meet WP:N, which is what really counts. Oren0 (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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) 11:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources check out, passes WP:N §hep • ¡Talk to me! 11:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:N, which is merely supplimented by WP:ATHLETE. — neuro^(talk) 20:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N trumps WP:ATHLETE. I expect every competent administrator to know this. SashaNein (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ATHLETE--Iamawesome800 23:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE: plays at the highest amateur level for his sport - Division I American college football. Grsz ¹¹ 03:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.