Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Mercer

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. WjBscribe 03:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mercer

I'm not sure there is no assertion of note in this (per the speedy tag), so I bring it here. I say this owing to the fact that he appears to have played for a bluelink name and may, pending verification have been good, and maybe resulted in media coverage. Or not, of course, and I'm not qualified to tell the difference. -Splash - tk 23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged for speedy, but maybe it isn't speediable. Pretty sure precedent is that fully professional athletes are notable, amateurs are not, and this shows no sign of being an exception. - Aagtbdfoua 03:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's easily notable. WP:BIO quite specifically includes amateurs who play at the highest level of their sport as likely to be notable. Playing at the University of Georgia is playing in the NCAA Division I and in one of its major conferences (the Southeastern Conference), so it is playing at the highest level of the sport of amateur men's basketball. As such, there is indeed media coverage of him.[1] [2] Mwelch 06:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Amateur basketball" is not a sport. "Basketball" is a sport, and the highest level of the sport is either one of the professional leagues or, if an amateur, the Olympics or some equivalent international tournament. I don't argue the guy probably has some mentions in the local paper. However, I thought the guidelines in WP:BIO superceded the general WP:N criteria. And I'm pretty sure that precedent was that college athletes are not notable, with the occasional crystal balling permitted for those clearly about to turn pro. - Aagtbdfoua 01:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mwelch said it all. —Bender235 15:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has had media coveraged and seems to be notable enough seeing as ESPN have a profile on him. [3] Kyriakos 01:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 00:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is already consensus. A mistaken speedy, based on a false assumption about what is considered N. I wonder how many other such people get speedy tags and the articles don't get noticed. DGG 02:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - he's a starter for a Division I collegiate program - pretty clear guideline for keeping on WP:BIO - "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." College athletics is also definitely the top-level of amateur basketball in the USA, that's why only collegians were allowed on the US Olympic basketball team until the professionals were allowed in the most recent Olympics dating back to the ,90s. --Roswell native 06:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You completely mis-interpeted the statement in WP:BIO - The intent of WP:BIO is to include only those athletes that participate at the highest level of their sport. For some sports, thats either college or the Olympics. But for those sports that have a professional level, then the athlete must have played at that level to qualify. College basketball is certainly not the highest level in the sport, so college basketball players are not automatically notable. This guy seems to be just a un-remarkable journeyman college player, so ~~Delete~~ - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CP, Mercer is a starter (second-leading scorer and one of the top defenders on the team) not a journeyman.[4] For my own edification, would you be able to point me to the guideline or discussion that asserts this amateur/professional clarification of WP:BIO, I just reread it, and I honestly don't infer your point (I understand your point, I just don't see it illustrated in WP:BIO). Thanks. --Roswell native 12:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - WP:BIO seems to have changed since I read it last. I apologize for my comments, you did indeed read it right. It is unfortunate though - WP:BIO is opening the way for stub articles on all of the 1635+ Division I basketball starters and the 2574+ Division I football starters (not counting special teams) that come about every single year. And thats just the starters - really, anybody who could come up with two verifiable sources that proved they stepped on the field would be immediately notable. And whats really interesting is that sports without professional leagues are further hurt by this guideline - the football player who played 2 minutes of garbage time at the end of a 55-6 blowout is notable, but a swimmer who wins two NCAA championships but failed to make the Olympic team is not? Anyway, I digress - after re-reading WP:BIO, I am now a Strong Keep - all college basketball players are notable. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Little or no concievable reason for deletion. --St.daniel 13:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was never a valid speedy deletion, so thanks to Splash for identifying this for future cases. Yamaguchi先生 01:21, 17 April 2007 (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.