Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaison Williams

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaison Williams[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH as he has never played in a game, went undrafted and a good faith search turns up no "significant coverage" of him. Giants27 (c|s) 19:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 (c|s) 20:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 (c|s) 20:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Normally I'd say delete, but as one of the most prolific receivers in the history of a Pac-10 program, I think his college career might make him just notable enough for inclusion. Just my two cents, but I could see it either way.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's not clear that he has made the Redskins squad and even the creator of the article inserted "No notable achievements" under "Career highlights and awards". On the other hand, he appears to have posted some impressive stats at Oregon. I, too, could see it either way. Location (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The "No notable achievements" thing should not be used in this argument. It's the infobox standard when a player doesn't have Pro Bowls, Super Bowl rings, etc. It doesn't mean he's not notable here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "No notable achievements" line is a BLP infraction if it's not sourced, frankly. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "no notable achievements" is stupid. The template should be changed. Strikehold (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete If he is one of the most prolific receivers in the history of a PAC-10 team, then that should be included in the article. As it stands, the article appears to fail the standard otherwise. Probably a better idea would be to expand the article so that it includes his Oregon information. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but the fact it's not currently in the article has nothing to do with whether or not Williams as subject is notable.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look at the C. J. Bacher afd, specifically Paul McDonald's comment, this sounds like the same argument which I agree with.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't see sufficient reliable sources to create a reasonable V, NPOV, NOR, BLP article at this time but should sources be provided, then such an article would be welcome. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I looked through Google News (seems there was a basketball player with the same name, but for ""Jaison Williams" Oregon football" there are 461 hits), but didn't find much that I think of as "significant coverage" per WP:BIO. If that is found and provided, I am open to changing my vote. As it stands, being a school-record holder, much less simply "one of the most prolific receivers" at a school, does not meet notability in itself. As an aside, these two-line stub articles have practically no merit and virtually no chance of expansion unless the guy becomes a star. Of course, that isn't directly related to notability, but see WP:HEY. Strikehold (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2009 (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.