Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Phelan

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 per Mlaffs and Neier. Very good debating, Mlaffs and Robwing. Constructive, civil compromises make me happy. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Phelan

Pat Phelan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - this has already survived one AFD and is pointless busy work. --B (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. The article can easily be restored if he ever plays professionally. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The largest newspaper in the country felt he was worth an article [1]. National media coverage is prima facia evidence of notability regardless of whether he plays in the professional regular season. --B (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I have the weirdest sense of deja vu. Does not fail WP:ATHLETE, as making an appearance in a fully professional league is only one of the two possible criteria. He's competed at the highest amateur level of his sport, and has valid secondary sources published. I've just added two more to the article - the USA Today draft preview linked above, in which he's the subject of both the headline and the photo inset, and an earlier reference to his being recruited by Wake Forest out of high school. Mlaffs (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - you've misread WP:ATHLETE. It says either "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis", which Phelan fails, or "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)" for which Phelan is inelligible as football is a professional sport. robwingfield ^«T•C» 07:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, I don't believe that I have misread WP:ATHLETE. My position is that you cannot define an entire sport as "professional" - it's just not logical. Football is competed at both the professional and amateur levels, as are basketball, hockey, baseball, American football, tennis, figure skating, and almost any other sport you can think of. That's why there are two tests. If you're an athlete competing at the professional level of your sport, you're generally considered notable. If you're an athlete competing at the highest amateur level of your sport, then you may also be considered notable if you have secondary sources published about you. Mlaffs (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: While WP:ATHLETE is often cited as an exclusive reason for deletion, reading the section heading at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria is instructional. quote Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Waving around WP:ATHLETE criteria as if notability established in normal ways (non-trivial coverage in multiple reputable sources) can be ignored is simply bad for the project. Neier (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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.