Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jock Sanders

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. Discounted Iamawesome800's and MISTER ALCOHOL's comments for making no pertinent arguments.  Sandstein  17:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Sanders

Jock Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. Jock Sanders may end up being notable, but right now he is not. Timneu22 (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy for now. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 03:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:ATHLETE, just a backup college football running back Secret ^account 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - He starts at receiver, has started a handful of times at running back, and was an all-conference selection. John (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per
  notability here otherwise. Good to know, though, that he's good at what he does. Best of luck to him. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or userfy The consensus for athletes puts a lot of emphasis on pro-play. I don't totally agree, but even so the level of notability here is not exceptional for a collegiate athlete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a pro player. JBsupreme (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's delete every college player then, if your notability rules state that being a pro makes an article notable or not. Whether I'm the creator or not, being an all-conference selection and being a multiple starter should be enough notability for our "rules". John (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some college players can be notable; it just so happens that this one is not. How many athletes from how many colleges are All-BIG EAST in a given sport? Just because John Smith from Rutgers is Second Team All-Big EAST tennis, this does not make the person notable. Timneu22 (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a substantial difference between being an all-conference selection in tennis and football. This is obvious. John (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be obvious to you — a West Virginian who follows American sports — but tennis has a more global following than American Football. Wikipedia is global. Timneu22 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep All-Big East=NOTABLE--
  800 15:52, 11 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.