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. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britton Colquitt[edit]

Britton Colquitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and nothing sugests he meets any other potential notability criteria. He has not yet competed in a professional game. PackerMania (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OR Close and relist later on- if needed Has a chance to become the Broncos starting punter next season (one of three punters on the roster) Wait until it pans out to see if it happens. Just because he hasn't had a chance to play in the NFL doesn't make him not notable. I'd say getting signed to the practice squad of an NFL team ensues notability.. it would be different if it was a guy who was cut in June after going undrafted. RF23 (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this player has notability now, it will never be appropriate to delete for lack of notability. Notability is not temporary nor, it would follow, is notability contingent on a future event. Where is it WP policy or guideline to create and keep an article before a subject is notable? You have to be kidding that you think every undrafted player signed to a practice squad is notable for that reason alone. If you really believe that is consensus, you should try to change WP:ATHLETE. The article should be deleted now and recreated if and when the player becomes notable. You could always userfy the page to your userspace and when he walks on the field the first time, move it on over to the regular space. PackerMania (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, since he comes from a long-time punting family... Seriously, though, I take it you would then vote to delete if he is cut. But that gets it backwards. Wikipedia articles are not to cover potentially notable people. An article should only cover an actually notable person. There is a great chance that he will make it, but it is not almost certain. Take a look at WP:FUTURE. Is there a countervailing "Let's see if they make it" guideline that I am not aware of? PackerMania (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yeah, I get all that. I just wouldn't waste the time deleting it and re-creating it when it could just sit there untouched.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove this source from your list? Tenn s Colquitt suspended, loses scholarship after DUI arrest, Charleston Gazette (WV), February 19, 2008. I added reference to this event in the article. I'm not missing something, am I? PackerMania (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it because it's a duplicate of #13. Did not want to include the same article twice. Cbl62 (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Cb162, according to your reasoning, would being a first team all-conference for a major conference be considered notable?RF23 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I'm not aware of a guideline stating such a principle, but receipt of a first-team All-SEC or All-Big 10 honor should go a long way in showing notability. Personally, I would favor a guideline that recognizes such players as notable. However, in crafting such a guideline, you'd have to determine which conferences are "major" and which all-conference selectors should count. Cbl62 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not voting since I'm not big into sports, but just a quote from WP:BIO: "meeting one or more [of the additional criteria (such as WP:ATHLETE)] does not guarantee that a subject should be included" so it's not the "automatic inclusionary rule" you've been claiming it is, just another likely rule to use. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I understand your comment, but based on American football deletion discussions over the past couple years, playing one game in the NFL or MLB has been treated per WP:ATHLETE as an automatic basis for inclusion. Sure, there might be cases where some would contend that a player participated in only a single professional contest should be rejected. But the point I was making is that, whether its automatic or not, WP:ATHLETE is an inclusionary guideline rather than an exclusionary guideline. Yet, some people misunderstand it and suggest that an athlete who has never played professionally is not notable. To the contrary, it has been widely recognized in prior discussions that a college football player who never plays professional football still qualifies if he meets the general notability standards by virtue of having received significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. In this case, my quick research (summarized above) came up with more than 30 articles which are focused specifically on Colquitt, i.e., coverage of him rather than passing references to him in coverage of game results. There are closer cases where I have voted to delete, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Babb, but in my view, Colquitt is pretty clearly on the keep end of the spectrum. Cbl62 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- That is a great point. And regarding RF23's question re: all-conference, why isn't the college football parallel to WP:ATHLETE #2 a college player being consensus All-American (or even just first team in one listing)? If WP:ATHLETE is the consensus position for athletes (realizing it is only a guideline, not a hard and fast rule and still subject to general notability), it would seem to require more than all-conference honors to be notable on the basis of athletics performance alone. Because news coverage of athletics is disproportionate to their reletive importance in the world, mere news coverage is going to be less accurate at determining notablity than more objective standards (like All-American, or playing in a pro game) and like I thought WP:ATHLETE was intended to do. The fluff pieces Cbl62 has cited here and at, for example, WP:Articles for deletion/Justin Brantly far from establishing some sort of objective, permanent notability, in my mind supports the case that WP:Athlete (and parallels that can be drawn for sports like football) should be the norm with exceptions made only in exceptional cases. If WP:ATHLETE will never carry the day (other than if Cbl62 wants to use it to automatically include somebody), we should get rid of it in favor of something editors agree on (two google news hits from the Sheboygan Times maybe). PackerMania (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2010 (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.
More