Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Wilks

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. — Aitias // discussion 00:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Wilks[edit]

I Prodded for deletion but tag removed by author. Article is unreferenced and about a player who fails WP:ATHLETE having only played at school level. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 10:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Athlete. --Ged UK (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has played at the highest amateur level of his sport(NCAA Division 1-A/FBS Football).

Plus, under the specified guidelines, that would mean Matt Barkley's Wiki article would need to be deleted as well, seeing as he has never played for a top level amateur/college club.

Oh yes, and it is referenced as well. I just don't know how to do those tags right beside the facts. Nickknx865 (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now properly referenced, I think Nickknx865 (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quote from the article: "Wilks had limited playing time at Tennessee in 2008, but some think he will play a very important part in the future of UT football under new head coach Lane Kiffin." It's an attempt at notability that fails wp:crystal ball. If he becomes a notable player, of course he'll deserve an entry. Until then, he does not. And, in any case, a collection of one-liners is clearly unencyclopedic and certainly doesn't belong in an article about anybody. Zeng8r (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'll say this. He HAS played, at the highest amateur level of his sport, which is what the guidelines specify. Armanti Edwards plays in FCS, the 2nd highest level of amateur football. Therefore, Matt Barkley and Armanti Edwards are 2 players who's article meets the criteria for deletion.

And I haven't done a single joke on there, so that's not my problem. Nickknx865 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. College football does not satisfy the amateur clause of WP:ATHLETE, which is intended to capture the equivalent of Olympic athletes; even FCS football is nowadays more of a minor league to the NFL than the highest level of its own sport, though it hasn't always been this way -- at one time college football was the top tier of competition available, but no longer. College players can establish their own notability, but this player clearly hasn't done that. I have deleted the unencyclopedic Jokes section and reformatted the references. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, wouldn't any college football player have to be deleted then? It's a logical question.

My interpretation was this. You have to be on the top level of amateur sports to be included, which is what Mr. Wilks is, an NCAA D-1A athlete. Did not think that pro sports were included in that individual rule, which means the guidelines are slightly misleading. Nickknx865 (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Div-I athlete notablility question was discussed at length here, in a deletion discussion for an article about a very similar player. Basically, it's impractical and unwarranted to have an entry on each of the thousands of Div-I football players out there. That article was deleted, by the way, and this one should be too, and for the same reasons. If he turns out to be a college star, it can be restored. Zeng8r (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After quickly reading over that talk page, it becomes clear to me that these are two totally different cases. Steve Gatena was a walk-on who never received a scholarship, and played on the scout team. Wilks is is a scholarship player who is on the actual "team" team, and plays, although not a whole ton of time.

If Jonathan Crompton meets the criteria for a Wiki article, then so does Wilks. Nickknx865 (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other player was a former walk-on who later received a scholly and started a couple games at USC. Here's the meat of the deletion argument, which appplies here as well:

If Wikipedia were to permit all Division I-FBS (top level) scholarship athletes, we'd have approximately [120 (teams) x 85 (NCAA-allowed scholarship players)] 10,200 new articles (at least). If you include walk-ons, that 10,200 number increases with very little room for any opinion on notability. A line must be drawn, and I think this line can be agreed upon. This article is basically a well-crafted vanity page; this article appears to be the work of either the subject, friend/relative, or PR firm. If it were allowed, any player who successfully walks onto any team would have a free ticket into Wikipedia. I could see an overrun of hopeful punters and kickers with the ability to create a "pretty" but ultimately non-notable page. College football is not a black/white "include all/delete all" situation, and this player falls onto the non-notable side.

Zeng8r (talk) 13:49, 21 February 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.