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. There seems to be some confusion here about the applicability of auxilliary notability guidelines versus the general notability guideline. I have explained this so many times, I really should make an essay on the subject (maybe somebody else already has?) The subject-specific auxilliary notability guidelines provide a second catchment for article subjects who are considered to be notable despite not passing the narrow criteria of WP:N. Many of these guidelines have been formed out of a response to deletion discussions over obviously notable subjects who simply do not have the required secondary source coverage. Wikipedian consensus in these cases provides some criteria to use to keep articles that meet some other criteria. These guidelines DO NOT override WP:N, in that a subject that meets WP:N does not also have to meet auxilliary guideline requirements. The auxilliary guidelines are not another hoop the subject has to jump through to be kept. In this case it is clear that the article passes WP:N, so there is nothing else to consider. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Johnson[edit]

This is a pretty straight forward case. College football player who had minimal activity at a collegiate level for a decent school in his freshman year. Considered simply deleting it, but it does make minimal claim to notability, thus isn't really speedily deletable. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. RayAYang (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being rated a top player nationwide by ESPN and other publications, besides making him important, seems to convey notability: he's received a notable award. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to familiarize yourself with WP's notability requirements for athletes. "Mr Kentucky" may be notable in KY and being ranked by various systems, does not convey into an encyclopdiac level. It's enough to keep this from being speedily deleted, but not enough to overcome established precidence.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with the athletes criteria, which he unquestionably fails. My point is that he's notable simply by passing the basic notability criteria. Of course, if you dispute that, it's a different matter :-) but failing athlete criteria doesn't automatically mean deletion. Nyttend (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do, I don't believe that top rated college recruits, even if covered in magazines are notable... if they were then, we'd be flocked with them and it would have been something ATHLETE discussed. There are hundreds of HS kids covered every year that don't amount to much. Similarly, as a rule, we don't have college athelete's with articles, despite the fact that many college athletes get weekly coverage in national magazine. While a HS award Mr Kentucky might be a notable award, receiving it doesn't in itself convey notability. Similarly, the LA Poker Classic may be a notable poker event, but winning it doesn't make the winner notable---even if there is some media coverage.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yanksox (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable, opens the door to masses of colege players that get mentioned on ESPN. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep I take a very limited position on high school notability, but i will accept a high school state individual championship in debate, sports, or whatever. One per state per year per sport. I think he qualifies for that. I'm not sure it will add too many more net, assuming half go on to further notability. Of course, we can continue to think we can judge notability better that the professional sports journalists. DGG (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~(see below) If one of the article writers could provide a source for Rated the nation’s top inside linebacker, that context would sway my vote either way. Until then I'll be neutral. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is listed on his collegiate biography page under "High School": http://www.ukathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/johnson_micah00.html WildManKY (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a top rated HS player has never been enough to warrant an article.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was more looking for an article that detailed his selection. A passing mention isn't really helpful and isn't backed up by a link to ESPN or other online sportsnews website. #9 in that nation isn't saying that much either. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you about being in Top 10 out of thousands of football prospects not being that impressive. Here is the actual ESPN profile link that has him listed as #1 at his position. http://insider.espn.go.com/ncf/recruiting/tracker/player?recruitId=27343&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fncf%2frecruiting%2ftracker%2fplayer%3frecruitId%3d27343 WildManKY (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being number 1 in his position in HS does not equate to notability per wikipedia's guidelines on athletes. If he is notable, then in a few years, after he has actually played at the professional level, then he will be worthy of inclusion.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not selling his HS accomplishments, just providing sources, which is what was asked by this individual user. I believe that his notability is the selection to the All-SEC team and his candidacy for the NFL Draft. Not to divert attention from this article, but I don't feel as if you are being aggressive in removing articles for many other college athletes. Should Tyler Hansbrough have his own article for being the consensus top college basketball player because he is not an NBA player? What about his brother, Ben Hansbrough? As for football, what about other notables in college football: Julio Jones, A.J. Green, John Parker Wilson, Percy Harvin, Colt McCoy--->he was up for Heisman, but he didn't win and he's not a professional, so he's technically not notable...Joe McKnight, Jacquizz Rodgers, Terrelle Pryor, Chris Wells (American football), Jimmy Clausen, Mark Sanchez, Marc Tyler, Eric Berry, Graham Harrell, Michael Crabtree, Darrell Scott (American football), Jermie Calhoun, Brian Cushing, just to name a few...also, what about high school seniors, Bryce Brown, Russell Shepard, Matt Barkley, and Devon Kennard, among others? Please add removal tags to these as well, and you will generate a much larger discussion on the topic of college athlete notability. WildManKY (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that WP:othercrapexists is not a valid argument for keeping. And yes, most of these articles need to be deleted. There might be one or two that have garnered enough import on their own to be notable, but most have not.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much an argument to keep, as it is a reference for you to place deletion tags if this one is deemed inappropriate for WikiSociety. WildManKY (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now isn't adding more and more names look a little pointy or is it just me? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 06:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Changing my vote to a Weak Keep. Further research shows he's won a good deal of awards; though he wasn't the MVP of the Army All-American Bowl. Unlike someone else. If the article does get deleted I would not contest recreation if he joins the NFL. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 06:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Micah Johnson was recently named 1st Team All-Southeastern Conference for the 2008 season. He is one of the top players in what is considered the toughest college football conference in the country, and as such, he is considering early entry into the 2009 NFL Draft. Thus, he will most likely be an NFL player after this season, unless he decides to stay for his senior year. His statistics only needed to be updated, and I have done this for his page.WildManKY (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you are fan of his and the school he plays for, but none of the reasons provided above meet our notability criteria. Until he plays for a professional team, he not considered a notable enough of player. This is has a long standing consensus here at WP.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I'm just a fan, but Micah Johnson is a soon-to-be professional in his sport. He is one of the top players as demonstrated by his selection to the All-SEC team by the coaches, including votes from the most respected coaches in America (Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, and Steve Spurrier, among others). He accomplished one of the highest recognitions that he could in high school as an Army All-American, and minor injuries have prevented him from claiming All-American in college (a distinguishment for which he will be a frontrunner if he returns for his senior season). All that I can add is that he is one of top linebackers for the 2009 NFL Draft, but there will not be many reliable articles on this until the draft combines are completed in the upcoming months. This article will be added again once he is drafted (most likely this upcoming April), so why delete it after 2-3 years of its current existence? WildManKY (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being drafted isn't enough, the expectation is that they played at a professional level. Being drafted isn't enough, He has to make the team.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG. Until I've seen a lot more, I disagree that there is consensus for the WP:ATHLETE to trump the GNG. DGG's point about substituting our judgment for the professionals on whose fact checking and editorial discretion we rely in obtaining reliable sources in the first place is apt as well. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:25, 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 17:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per User:DGG. Varrey280303 (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 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. More can definitely be added if needed. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the top Kentucky high-school football player.Tavix (talk) 22:51, 14 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.