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. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Reynolds (American football)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never achieve much, if any notoriety. Only "substantial" coverage of subject is local media. I've seen articles about athletes as "successful" with as much local coverage deleted. I feel this article falls in the same category. Cra sh Underride 11:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appears to be significant coverage of Reynolds in multiple, mainstream media outlets, including national outlets like ESPN.com. Searching for coverage is complicated due to the prominence of the actor, but examples of coverage include (1)this and (2) this from ESPN.com, (3) this, (4) this], and (5) this from The Oklahoman, (6) this from Newson6, and (7) this and (8) this from the Tulsa World. Cbl62 (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainstream local outlets. So, does that mean that Tyler Urban can have an article? He was a tight end for WVU that certainly had good coverage in local media. Heck, he even spent time with the Patriots in the off season, but never played pro ball. He doesn't haven't have an article. It was deleted for being non notable. Just an example.

ESPN is not a local outlet. And The Oklahoman and Tulsa World are not small-town outlets; they are major metropolitan newspapers, the two largest circulation papers in the State of Oklahoma. As for Tyler Urban, I don't know anything about him. He would have to be evaluated under WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG, but Mr. Urban's notability or lack thereof has no bearing on this AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes he does. He was covered by the Charleston Gazette in the West Virginia state capital and in Morgantown, one of the largest cities in the state, and if I'm not mistaken, the newspapers in Pittsburgh also cover the Mountaineers as they are only 90 miles apart. He was also covered on ESPN. As for the ESPN article, it's a blog post about one game. Okay, if we are to create an article for every player that made a bowl game, got mentioned on some ESPN.com blog then half the players in the country would have to have articles. (Sarcasm for effect.) The fact is, this guy did NOTHING in college, never played pro football and has done NOTHING noteworthy in his career aside from have the same name as a famous actor. Cra sh Underride 09:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no quarrel with Tyler Urban and don't recall any AfD relating to him, so I'm not sure why you continue to raise that. As for Reynolds, it is simply not accurate that "half the players in the country" get significant coverage on ESPN.com with articles focused on them as opposed to WP:ROUTINE passing mentions in game coverage. Your subjective opinion that he has done nothing noteworthy is also belied by the facts: Reynolds was one of the top defensive players on the 2007-2009 Sooners teams that were twice ranked in the Top 10 in the country. He also received the Walter Payton Trophy and was a first-team high school All-American pick by USA Today and Parade and Parade's pick as the best linebacker in the country. Cbl62 (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football. Cbl62 (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG to me with coverage from multiple sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete (forgot to post that earlier). It's simple, this guys career was NOTHING. Had I not been on the article for the actor Ryan Reynolds I never would've heard of this guy. Most OU fans wouldn't know him....ya know what, forget it, let's keep it. Then lets let anyone who's played in a handful of college games, never won an award, never done anything noteworthy get an aricle. I'm sure you'll understand my last statement is sarcasm. I know of so many more deserving players are so many other schools that should have articles but don't because they fail notability, even though they were actually drafted into the NFL. So, let us lower the standard fo notability so that anyone who played college football for any school can have an article. How does that sound? (End of sarcasm). Cra sh Underride 04:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your "delete" vote is already understood from your nomination of the article. No need to vote again. Cbl62 (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Felt it might be necessary just for pure "bureaucratic" purposes. Cra sh Underride 06:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to quite obviously pass GNG – given how highly high school football is regarded in the U.S. (as compared to other countries), I think anyone who is rated All-American by multiple publications is going to be notable. ~1,500 views in the past 90 days also suggests there's a lot of people looking for info about him. Don't see any good reason to delete. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also WP:NHSPHSATH to consider, a guideline which I've just discovered, and am confident that he meets. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being named an All-American in high school football is no small feat, especially when named to three separate All-American teams. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NHSPHSATH. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:52, 25 October 2015 (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.