Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Morris

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Morris[edit]

Bernard Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not meet WP:Athlete User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain why it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, cause I'm confused. It specifically states that we can keep "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." How does the quarterback for a Division I school fail that criteria? I'm not saying he was stellar or that the article couldn't be improved, but those are separate issues. Just because an article needs improvement doesn't mean it should be deleted. — BQZip01 — talk 23:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Playing college football alone isn't enough to satisfy the requirements, otherwise we would have tons of college football-only player articles (and college baseball, college basketball, college golf), which we do not have. I interpret "Highest levels of amateur sports" to refer to Olympic or World Championship-level sports that do not have comparable professional levels: track, volleyball, etc. By your reasoning, anyone who competed at the "highest level" of amateur street racing or amateur skateboarding would be in. Either you get paid full-time for your competition or that competition has some newsworthy medals attached to it is how I read those sentences.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 12:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no linkage between #1 and #2. Look above and below and you'll find they are just lists of criteria, not "#1 XYZ and #2 if he doesn't fit that, but only if he isn't Y, then it can stay unless #3 he's born on October 22nd..." etc.
  • Strong Keep This article is definitely notable enough to be kept since he was a college athlete who was a starter and was invited to the NFL Combine this year. Which obviously makes him notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. --Iamawesome800 (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hasn't played professionally in what is basically a professional sport. Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE per nom. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of college athletes don't go to the Pros. Besides, he meets the WP:Athlete criteria to a T (see below for more). — BQZip01 — talk 23:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because having been a college starter and having been invited to the NFL combine is insufficient to establish notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*His amateur career seems to satisfy the guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm returning to my original conclusion. He competed at a high level, but I don't think he competed at the highest level. There just doesn't seem to be any notability demonstrated. Unless the policy is that all div 1 athletes who start in college automatically qualify, I just don't see why he belongs in the encyclopedia. His achievements are impressive, no doubt about it, but does he belong in the encyclopedia because he played quarterback at Marshall? I don't think so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Long-established practice is that individuals in professional-type sports, including American football, aren't notable for non-professional play, unless they're really distinctive. This guy isn't really distinctive, and he's not professional. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite sure where you are getting the "long-established practice" part because I don't see anything even close to what you purport. WP:BIO, a well established guideline, states to the contrary and no policy states anything close to what you support. If you want to change policy/guidelines, please do so on those pages, but I think it's a keeper under our current guidelines/policy. — BQZip01 — talk 00:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep meets guidelines set forward in essay on college football notability. Needs work. The "long-established practice" mentioned above is not really "accepted" or "established" as the existence of the NFL does not negate notability at the college level, as discussed here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI but that is not a guideline just an essay. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • EMPHATICALLY STRONG CAPITALIZED LETTERS KEEP (ok a bit of overkill there, but you get the point). This particular person explicitly meets the criteria in WP:BIO which state "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." The quarterback for a team is inherently the highest position for an athlete on a football team. — BQZip01 — talk 23:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think he meets the current form of WP:ATHLETE. I seem to recall that an earlier form of the guideline suggested that subjects would be presumed notable for their amateur careers only if they played in sports with no professional equivalent. However, the current version makes no such distinction. I suppose one could argue that because Marshall doesn't play division I football, he didn't participate at the "highest level", but given that he played the most visibile position on the team, and apparently started his entire junior season, is probably enough. I would feel differently about a reserve player. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:02, 19 November 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 01:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I said above, "Long-established practice is that individuals in professional-type sports, including American football, aren't notable for non-professional play, unless they're really distinctive". For proof: consider that most amateur league baseball players competed in college baseball, which corresponds quite well to college football, but we've long considered that minor leaguers aren't inherently notable. If they, being former college baseball players, aren't notable, how can former college competitors in another sport be inherently notable? Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, who is this "we" you speak of? Where did you find such a consensus? — BQZip01 — talk 05:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete based on no demonstrated notability, and no entitlement at all to inherent notability. The phrase "Competitors who have competed at the highest level of amateur sports" is preceded by another section that refers to "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." If it had been intended that "competed in an high-level amateur league" was entitled to the same treatment as "competed in a fully professional league", then something of that nature could have been added. But it wasn't. I would conclude that WP:ATHLETE does not mean that all college athletes are notable just by having competed in a major college football conference. "Highest level of amateur sports" would not mean a bye just by playing NCAA Division I-A football. Arguably, Bernard Morris could potentially be shown to be notable in comparison to other college (amateur) football players, such as an All-America selection, or being invited to play in an all-star college game (Hula Bowl, Shrine Game, etc.). Passing for 1,346 yards isn't too shabby, but it's not passing leader material either. Mandsford (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be preceded by another section, but that section lists ONE form of criteria. It isn't inclusive (you don't have to satisfy both conditions). This is inherently notable. He doesn't have to be an All-American or even a trophy winner. — BQZip01 — talk 05:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Under your interpretation of the guideline, every college football, baseball, volleyball, basketball, golf, track, soccer, softball, lacrosse, fencing, rowing, etc to ad nauseum player would be notable. That's why the guideline is 1. Fully professional is there exists such in that sport and 2. Highest level of amateur sports for those that do not exist: Olympics and World Championships.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 12:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your interpretation of the guideline is interesting, but the guideline states nothing of what you stated above. — BQZip01 — talk 17:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My interpretation of the athlete guideline is that if there is a pro-league, they should have played a game in that league. This really does open the door to considering all college players as members of the highest-level of an amateur sport. I don't think a minor league player is notable, which could be construed as being even closer to professional sports than a college player. Law shoot! 13:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment but a minor league player (such as arena football, world league, etc) would be a professional league. College football is separate, different, and distinctive--and the highest level of the amateur expression of the sport.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about college tennis? If college football has this distinction, then the athlete guideline would allow all college footballers to have an article. I believe a college ballplayer, for any sport, would have to pass WP:N as opposed to ATHLETE. Law shoot! 14:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the minor league sports, the usual outcome on those has been that lower level players still have to demonstrate notability within the sport. We had a discussion a few months back when someone created articles for every player on the Fort Meyers Sun Sox, which plays in the Class A Florida State League in baseball. The consensus was that, despite the fact that the FSL is a "fully professional sports league" (all of its players are paid to play), that didn't mean that all players were inherently notable. Inherent notability is, and should be, limited. We don't have a bye for every scientist involved in cancer research or the search for alternative energy either. I think that Mr. Morris himself would acknowledge that there are lots of things that are more important than playing college football. As for saying that all college athletes should be inherently notable, its not much different than those blue ribbons that say "participant", and which are handed out to every kid who didn't place 1st, 2nd or 3rd in a competition. Or giving a little trophy to every kid that plays Little League baseball. Somehow, I think that most college football players will not worry too much about whether they have been honored on Wikipedia, and that the trophies that really matter are the ones that they have earned. Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, but what does that have to do with this particular article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Since you asked... It gets back to the simple statements in WP:ATHLETE concerning which players are inherently notable and which ones are not. Bernard Morris is not inherently notable, and not any more notable than any other college player. Your argument for "Keep" is "meets guidelines set forward in essay on college football notability." Let's be absolutely clear on this, since the word "guidelines" implies some type of acceptance by the Wikipedia community. What you refer to as "guidelines set forward in an essay on college football notability" are not guidelines at all. They appear to be one man's proposals [1]. If anyone takes the time to read the essay, they will see that it includes suggestions on how to respond to people who refer to the established guidelines [2]. Arguing that Bernard Morris is entitled to his own article because it meets a proposed guideline is not much different than saying that I'm entitled to have my mortgage paid off because there is a "law" that has been introduced in Congress. I'm afraid that your personal opinion is entitled to no more deference than the personal opinion of any of the other persons in this discussion. Mandsford (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing that would set him apart from any other starting member of his own team, much less the players on a multitude of similar teams worldwide. BQZip01's assertion that the quarterback is "inherently the highest position for an athlete on a football team" is too strong a statement: other positions are often occupied by superior athletes, and team captains (when designated) are not necessarily quarterbacks. There's no reason that quarterbacking (on an NCAA team) should guarantee notability. As for WP:Athlete, I'd say that in general, international competition in amateur sport is considered to be "the highest level" (e.g. Olympics, world championships, etc.). Although within the U.S., the NCAA would probably be viewed as being "the highest level", it's probably useful to be aware of WP:Bias when evaluating notability. TheFeds 18:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say he was always the superior athlete, but the QB is the "field general" and makes the calls on the field. I'll grant you they aren't always the team captains either, but most are. I concur that internationally, international competition is indeed the highest, but since we're talking about football (almost exclusively an American sport), the highest amateur status they can attain is in college/NCAA. Therefore I say keep. Can you explain why you don't exactly. I'm a little confused. — BQZip01 — talk 19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need to consider whether or not notability guidelines should be interpreted with a regional bias. It seems to me that if we consider the NCAA to be "the highest level", then we're ignoring international (American) football leagues and tournaments. In any other amateur sport played at an international level, we'd consider tournaments between nations to be higher-level than tournaments between schools. Also, consider the CIS from Canada: while football is similarly widespread there, there is no special cultural recognition of university football teams, and likely no compelling reason to designate any of their team members (much less quarterbacks only) as being notable on Wikipedia. TheFeds 21:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm okay with CIS football notability. There's even a canadian football project that digs into it...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "I think we need to consider whether or not notability guidelines should be interpreted with a regional bias."
    Great. Please bring it up on the guideline's page. Until that changes, our discussion is based on the current criteria.
    "It seems to me that if we consider the NCAA to be "the highest level", then we're ignoring international (American) football leagues and tournaments."
    Why? Is there a higher level of amateur competition in American football of which I am unaware? The section you point to makes only a passing reference to a single amateur league (CIS).
    "In any other amateur sport played at an international level, we'd consider tournaments between nations to be higher-level than tournaments between schools."
    Well, this isn't any other amateur sport, is it? Since there are no tournaments between nations for football, this is a wonderful academic discussion, but it simply doesn't apply here.
    "Also, consider the CIS from Canada: while football is similarly widespread there, there is no special cultural recognition of university football teams, and likely no compelling reason to designate any of their team members (much less quarterbacks only) as being notable on Wikipedia."
    So because there is cultural recognition of football teams in the U.S. and there isn't a cultural impact in Canada, we shouldn't put any of them on Wikipedia? I would argue the exact opposite. If people in the U.S. care about football, then it would be reasonable to have a in-depth section on it. If they don't care then we might not even bother because no one would read it. IMHO, I wouldn't care one way or another if they included it or not. They too seem to be the pinnacle of Canadian experience in American football. — BQZip01 — talk 16:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a group, NCAA football players do not meet the WP:ATHLETE requirement. They would then need to be notable on their own (and satisfy WP:BIO) and he is not. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Why do we even bother to have WP:ATHLETE if people are going to completely ignore it without cause or resaon?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia:Notability (sports) failed to reach consensus. Thank God WP:ATHLETE is only a guideline and not policy and we can apply some common sense (WP:IAR). GtstrickyTalk or C 22:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thank goodness we have ambiguity. That way we can continue to have heated discussions like these. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't have common sense; please keep that in mind. — BQZip01 — talk 06:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ATHLETE. Marshall is a member of NCAA Division I FBS, the "highest level in amateur sports". The way WP:ATHLETE is written, Morris is notable. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Issues with that guideline should be brought up elsewhere. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's no indication that he competed at the "highest level". I didn't see any notations on bowl games. He wasn't, apparently, selected for any major team or conference honors. So while he competed at a high level, he clearly hasn't competed at the highest level, unless you argue that every Div. 1 college athlete (or starting athlete) deserves an article on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the old "bowl game" argument. Sigh. If you want to re-write WP:ATHLETE please move your discussion there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put: he has not competed at the highest level. This is why you're stuck arguing (wikilawyering?) instead of being able to add cited content that would establish notability based on established guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop calling me names, man. Stick to the issue. Just do a freaking google search and you'll find 7,670 articles for +"Bernard Morris" +Marshall. Okay, probably not all of them are reliable, probably not all of them are third party, probably not all of them are even about our subject here. But I'd gather that just by glancing at the first articles brought up (including one from CBSSports.com that there's some reasonable notability here. And just because "User:Paulmcdonald doesn't have time to add references to an article" is certainly an argument to avoid in deletion discussions--although I can't even believe I have to mention that! Yes, the article could be improved. No, it should not be deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
  • It's been a good discussion, and I've enjoyed the debate. Regardless of how the discussion on Bernard Morris comes out-- keep, delete, no consensus-- it's not likely to set any type of precedent. I'm sure that all of us-- Paul, Midnight, Zip, Stricky, Olympian, etc.-- will be meeting again in future debates. I regret that we can't all have a few beers, but I plan to have one here in a few minutes. As for Mr. Morris, looks like he's having a good senior year, and I hope that he has a great career ahead of him. Nice talking with everyone. Mandsford (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally something we agree on... ;) respectfully, ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of particular accomplishments as an amateur athlete. Probably we need some intermediary step between saying all players who make game appearances for Division one schools are notable, and requiring a major national level award. I leave it to the fans. I don't even want to think about below division I. If he is drafted, and plays, he'll be notable. DGG (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:ATHLETE says "competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports", not "competitors who have competed at the highest amateur level in sports". This is not an amateur sport, so the subject isn't notable on these grounds. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment College football most certainly is an amateur sport.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Sorry if I'm showing my ignorance here as someone to whom "football" means a sport played with the feet, but isn't college football the same sport as the one played in the NFL? And isn't the NFL professional? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I understand the question. "Professional" in ordinary usage means to show the highest standards in performing a task, and "amateur" can refer to a hobby. Although players in college and the NFL both work very hard at what they do, "professional sports" (more commonly "pro") refers to being paid money for doing the task and amateur means that one is not paid. Mandsford (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I understand that. My point is simply that american football is a professional sport, so the player can't be said to play at the highest level in amateur sports. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Where is a higher level in amateur football? You are saying that the highest level in football is the pros, fine, but college is the highest an amateur can achieve. After that they become pro. There isn't a distinction in the guideline. Like I said before, you are welcome to try and change the guideline, but as it stands now, there isn't a linkage that says "if there is a professional version of the sport, then the highest amateur league is not valid". They are two separate criteria and they aren't linked. — BQZip01 — talk 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • That bit of the guideline says "highest level in amateur sports", so only applies to amateur sports, of which American football is not one. For all less parochial sports such as association football and cricket the guideline is interpreted to mean that it doesn't apply to amateur players because the sport is played professionally, so why should we make an exception for this sport? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                1. College football is, by definition, an amateur sport. It has no direct links to professional football.
                2. The guideline doesn't say "amateur sports with no professional leagues." It just says "amateur sports".
                3. Your snide remark/link thinking this to American exceptionalism is out of line. I'm not stating my points on the subject because it is American, I'm stating it because I believe it to meet the guidelines. Your attempt to push the article into a WP:BIAS argument is uncalled for. — BQZip01 — talk 23:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • But college football is the same sport as professional football. And, as regards American exceptionalism, I'd just like to point out that articles on even professional association football (soccer) players routinely get deleted on the technicality that they play in a league where some other clubs are not fully professional, and articles on players in amateur leagues, even if they are playing at the top amateur level in their country, get laughed out of court. Why should American football players be treated any differently? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Why treated differently? Well, 1) there's a lot more press, as evidinced by the simple google search referenced above; 2) there are differences between college ball and NFL, specifically in a) selected rules, b) pagentry, c) exhibition d) length of time played (college since 1869, NFL since 1920; 3) AfD discussions should really be handled on a case-by-case basis, and WP:ATHLETE is a guideline not a policy, and 4) I can't help it that people have misinterpreted WP:ATHELTE on other sports, why should that mistake apply here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI think this has been said before but don't say delete just because you think it needs work. Fix it don't say delete since it needs work. It stupid and pointless. And he does meet WP:Athlete since he has played in DI which is the highest level of amatuer sports.--Iamawesome800 (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just playing at D-1 is not the highest level of amateur sports. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "highest level" is a guideline consistent with all the other guidelines for notability. Playing at the highest level would be demonstrated by achieving notability in any number of ways. If you think the standard should be that all Division 1 athletes get their own article on Wikipedia, I suggest getting consensus for that clarification. I don't think every player who starts or plays at a Division 1 school is notable and every player on every Div. 1 football team isn't playing at the highest level. It doesn't make sense to me to say this player played at the same level as more notable players, let alone more notable players who played at the same position and were recognized as notable. They played in the same conference, but not everyone plays at the highest level. If you can come up with a notable accomplishment that justifies this subject's inclusion (and shows he played at the highest level for a college quarterback or football player) please provide a citation to the source, and I will be happy to consider it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Currently we do not have pages for every Div-IA football player, nor for any players in other college sports. What would be next? College baseball and softball players would have to be included as well, as there is no Olympic competition in those sports anymore. This would be a vast change in the way that the policy has been interpreted until now, one that shouldn't be made on this page but would need a consensus for that change. There are a few college players who achieved notability by themselves, see Tommie Frazier, but they are rare and achieved notability on their own although they didn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Think about this: players in af2 do not as of now get in under the guideline, as they are only paid $200 per game, not enough to live on. Yet every single player in that league played collegeg ball somewhere, a lot of them in Div-IA. If they don't make it when they are playing at a professional level above college, then why would experience at a level below that which didn't qualify them now do so?--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 00:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've heard a lot of music here, but I ain't dancing. I'm still waiting for a simple, straightforward answer about how college football is not the highest level of amatuer American football. "That's not the way we do it in _____" is not an answer, it's a dodge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And I'm still waiting for a simple, straightforward answer about how American football is an amateur sport. It's obviously not, so any guidelines about players in amateur sports don't apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it NOT an amateur sport? They don't get paid. How is it professional? Declaring something to be "obviously not [an amateur sport]" doens't make it so. — BQZip01 — talk 23:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that football is not an amateur sport. The problem is the hyperlinking in the guideline of amateur sport, which goes on to qualify collegiate football as amateur. My interpretation of ATHLETE is 'if the player does not play in a sport that has a professional level, then that player has to play in the highest level offered' - meaning without playing a single pro-football game, ATHLETE is not satisfied, just as a minor league American baseball player is not notable. Law shoot! 22:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THat just doesn't wash. Your interpretation is completely different from the actual text.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So BQZip01 and Paul McDonald, you do understand that under your interpretation of the guideline, every college baseball and softball players would now be eligible for inclusion? Law, I find your interpretation to be the most realistic. Let me ask the others this: why have the first category? Who would get in under the first category who wouldn't already have gotten in under the second? --User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer any number of athletes who skip college and go right to the pros, which is fairly common in both basketball and baseball.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clever but disingenuous. The first criteria doesn't exist solely for the few dozen NBA players who skipped college, or even the few football players like Eric Swann and Dominic Rhodes who didn't play college football.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 06:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's accurate and destroys this argument (not all of yours, just this one). You can't say "besides, who else would this apply to?" and then, when someone mentions those to whom it applies, you don't change the discussion to "well, that's not why the first rule was written." No one said it was. We just answered your question and proved that there are reasons why someone could fall in #1 and not in #2. That's all. — BQZip01 — talk 06:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for a biography isn't established by the profitability of the sport a person participates in, but on how notable the person and their individual accomplishments are.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of course. But there's been a lot of talk here and on other AfDs about the legitimacy of college football as a highest professional league. That was the intention of the information being provided, and I for one welcome it to the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying that a player can't get in under general WP:N guidelines. See Tommie Frazier or Jamelle Holieway as examples. Or Eric Crouch who wasn't drafted and never played for an NFL team. But all of these guys got significant coverage in reliable sources fir their college accomplishments. I don't think Bernard Morris has reached that level of notability, and he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE either, so he should go.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 06:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article needs work so don't delete because he hasn't done much, I mean he has to have been on a some team as a practice squad player at sometime right? I mean why else would he have been invited to the combine, I mean he has talent.--Iamawesome800 01:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a cite that he signed to a practice squad, that would get him in.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 06:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Are you going to write about how he really tore up the practice field? Let's keep notable athletes and delete non-notable athletes. That's my guideline. If they ain't been written about, they ain't notable. Not even if they were on the roster. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:33, 25 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bernard_Morris&oldid=1140204268"