Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug DeMartin

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug DeMartin[edit]

No appearances in professional competition, although his is a professional sport. Fails WP:ATHLETE and principles established at WP:FOOTY, and although there are some references, they are from his university and his club, for whom he has not yet played: these do not seem sufficiently independent to establish notability. Kevin McE (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Kevin McE (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. Not Notable until he plays a senior game at a professional level. Camw (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and cleaned up the article and made it fit into the footballer template before reading this. The young man is notable and will play for his club when the season begins. American footballers should be considered differently because of the structure of the college game/youth clubs in my opinion. There is nothing that presumes he won't be a professional as he is now about to sign his first contract. Morry32 (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedic inclusion depends on what has verifiably happened, not on what there is no reason to assume will not happen (WP:CRYSTAL). There are vast numbers of aspiring players who have signed contracts at professional clubs but have not yet appeared in a competitive match, and the creation of their articles is not recommended, nor is it justified by WP:ATHLETE Kevin McE (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Morry clarified on his talk page that this was meant to be a keep !vote, not just a comment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Player is a new draftee who has not yet played a professional game, and therefore fails WP:FOOTY's guidelines for WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Big Ten Player of the Year should confer notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for winning a major award in college athletics. matt91486 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore if/when he plays professionally. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has won several awards making him notable. Nfitz (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He certainly fails WP:ATHLETE at the moment (stating that he WILL appear for his club is crystalballery and shouldn't be used as a keep argument), but the awards won and sources supplied are enough to make him notable (NCAA honours are a pretty big deal in the States). Bettia (rawr!) 10:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are available to establish the notability of the subject 1. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:59, 21 January 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.