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The result was Keep as withdrawn. Synergy 17:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dez Bryant[edit]

WITHDRAWN - No point in keeping this here since its gonna get shot down anyhow. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Dez Bryant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log) This article is about a College Football Player. Star at his own level or not, according to the standards set in WP:BIO, the section pertaining to athletes, it defines notable as:

• Competitors 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 who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.

neither of which this guy has done. Regardless of his heismann consideration for 2009 or 2010 or whether he is a top 5 college Wide Receiver, the fact remains that He fails notability standards for this category. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pretty clearly meets the general notability criterion (non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent sources): [1], [2]. In America, college football is just as popular as the major professional sports, and many individual players can achieve national recognition. Those two lines you've quoted from WP:BIO simply provide a poor means of judging people like Bryant, and should be dismissed in this particular case. Zagalejo^^^ 04:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article is about one of the best players in college football and future NFL star who is considered a Heisman candidate this year and has been compared to Michael Crabtree who has an article, and it is sourced. The user that nominated it for deletion clearly knows nothing of college football and a deletion should not happen because of this--Yankees10 06:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as pointed out, collegiate football in the United States carries more prestige than many professional sports. This guy is at the top of his game. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Yankees10 has pointed out, rightly, I know nothing of College Football. Which is why we have guidelines to follow on things, but what is the point of having rules and notability guidelines if they are going to get ignored just because the subject of an article might become a professional? He isn't yet, and although the guidelines may be a poor way of assessing him, they are there for a reason. Can we get a little objectivity please? Thor Malmjursson (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say he's notable as he is right now, regardless of whether he becomes a professional. College football is covered by the mainstream media in the US (more so than, say, professional soccer, which is the most widely played sport in the world). If a professional soccer player from the US at the top of his game is notable, then this guy is too. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines clearly need to be changed--Yankees10 15:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The guidelines do not need to be changed they just need to be read correctly. The criteria set forth in the subject-specific notability guidelines are subordinate to the general notability standard, as is implicitly noted by duplication of the general standard in the subject-specific guidelines themselves (here, see WP:BIO#Basic criteria). Accordingly, meeting or not meeting WP:ATHLETE is entirely immaterial. The nominator should also note the many places in guideline and policy where those taking articles to AfD are advised to do at least a perfunctory search first to check whether the subject is patently not a valid candidate (here, here and here among others). Per any number of easily accomplished searches, it is shown that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources (and does so in spades), thus meeting the letter of Wikipedia's general notability standards. See, e.g. this Google News search; 120 New York Times articles. This is about as conclusive as notability gets.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:59, 9 November 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.