Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Allen

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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Allen

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of non-trivial sources found in a quick google search. Passes WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 18:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep personally don't care for ND, but he seems to have lots of non-trivial coverage for his playing there. Needs to be added to the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. He is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player not deserving of a standalone article. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undrafted free agent who has not played in an NFL game. There's a line to be drawn and this is on the wrong side of it. Carrite (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes ATH 4.1 C.2 by meeting GNG ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He does not pass WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he does. He's had national media coverage in espn.com, msnbc.com and the Chicago Tribune. These are major national media outlets. Cbl62 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about ATH, not GNG. The !voter used ATH as a rationale. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. WP:ATH says the following re college athletes: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include ... players who: ... Gained national media attention as an individual." Cbl62 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Freja Beha Erichsen references specifically that he passes ATH 4.1 C.2, which is that he has played in an NFL or other professional league game. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it is not obvious to me, but please be more specific on how you believe "ATH 4.1 C.2" applies.—Bagumba (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes both WP:GNG and WP:ATH, and either suffices. Was a star in college, leading rusher at Notre Dame in both 2008 and 2009. Had substantial non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Not just passing references in game coverage, but extensive press coverage focusing on him, including coverage in national media outlets like msnbc and espn that brings him within WP:ATH. See, e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Cbl62 (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bottom line is that this is an aspiring athlete who has not played a single game professionally. I'd have more sympathy for the 11th hour argument that this was a collegiate superstar if this was actually started about a collegiate player. This is a new stub piece, however, launched after he was drafted. Teams have fans, thus the page. Athletes are treated different than politicians or businessmen or academics. Inclusion is comically easy IF AN INDIVIDUAL PLAYS A SINGLE GAME PROFESSIONALLY. Other than that, one needs to be a true collegiate superstar, award winning Big Dog to get through the gate. This is as it should be. Save the stuff and recreate the piece as soon as he plays a game. Until then, this is a crystal ball exercise. Carrite (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "superstar" rule for notability in this or any other context on Wikipedia. Under WP:GNG, a person (in business, politics, entertainment, and college athletics as well) is notable if the subject of significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNG allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." This was a run-of-the-mill college player that does not deserve a stand-alone article. —Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the notability he received playing in college makes him pass WP:GNG and Wikipedia:ATH#College_athletes Truthsort (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasons as others that said delete.--Yankees10 01:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fails WP:ATH, passes WP:GNG. Joe Chill (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it passes WP:GNG, then why are you voting delete? Truthsort (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I accidentally typed delete. Joe Chill (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2011 (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.