Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitch Morse

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 speedy no consensus. I know this is probably in violation of all sorts of rules, but WP:IAR. Look, this obviously isn't going anywhere and there is no point to dragging out the discussion for a week. Therefore, I am closing this so we can move on quicker. If TortoiseWrath wants to renominate the articles on an individual basis, that would be fine. (non-admin closure) Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Morse

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Player has not been signed by any NFL team. Notability was not clearly established in college, and WP:NGRIDIRON is not applicable as the player has not yet (and certainly may never) appear in an NFL game. — TORTOISE WRATH 17:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Nominating additional articles for same reasons:[reply]

— TORTOISE WRATH 18:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you even bother to check if he passes WP:GNG? He would probably pass even if he wasn't drafted.--Yankees10 17:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This may certainly be the case for Morse (hence him being a second-round pick), but asserting the same for someone like Jon Feliciano is highly questionable. — TORTOISE WRATH 18:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Undrafted players may have tons of coverage. Round drafted means nothing with notability.--Yankees10 18:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also a lot of these players get coverage after they were drafted. Like this with Feliciano.--Yankees10 18:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From my talk page: "There's a reason we have further notability guidelines, such as WP:NGRIDIRON, for various topics. They exist to elaborate on WP:GNG and provide clearer criteria for notability. There has to come a point where football players are not notable, and while I can confirm that the vast majority of these players will become notable in the future, there is no way to tell which ones at this point. We have no articles for Tavon Rooks (drafted 202nd overall, 2014), James Taylor (drafted 33rd overall, 1978), or the majority of other football players who have not in fact played in the NFL. Why do you believe this is so?"

Also worth noting that User:Yankees10 is the creator of these articles. — TORTOISE WRATH 18:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deleting all of these wouldn't really accomplish much. Only two players from the 2014 NFL Draft don't have articles. Most of these people play in at least one game their first season. Also, the 1978 NFL draftees didn't get as much widely available coverage as now and the draft had 80 more picks. Other users might just start making articles about these draftees if Yankees10 doesn't. These articles probably wouldn't be nominated right now if they weren't short. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, if someone had a decent article before the draft that was not deleted than their notability would have been established in college. Those two people left from the 2014 draft are those whose notability did not end up being established in college or in any professional league. Calling people notable simply because they are drafted in the NFL, which seems to be what has happened here, seems to invoke WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTWHOSWHO (the draft is indeed a notable event, but the coverage of these individuals in the article 2015 NFL draft should often be all that is necessary, particularly before Week 1), particularly when the current wording of WP:NGRIDIRON (which I have noticed does change fairly frequently, and may have been different at the times of previous drafts, causing more articles to be created) is in place. — TORTOISE WRATH 18:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this AFD fails there is something seriously wrong with WP:NGRIDIRON which will require discussion. — TORTOISE WRATH 18:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is disruptive to nominate them all at once. As others have noted, almost all players drafted last year now have articles. Deleting them at this point would just make someone do the work again. Calidum T|C 20:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Calidum's reasoning. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 22:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 22:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Calidum. If these players don't meet WP:NGRIDIRON six months from now, we can then reevaluate their individual notability claims under WP:GNG at that time. Putting them all together in a giant list like this is totally pointless. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They shouldn't be nominated all at once, but we don't create articles on people who will "probably" be notable in the future. That's not, not has it ever been, how this works. Granted, Wikipedia's coverage on American football as it is is horribly done; articles are swiftly created when drafted, abandoned, and atrophied much more so than any other subject. Wizardman 23:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh look another user that decided to do zero research on whether these guys pass GNG or not and voted delete based on their own agenda. Guess what, they all do. Your reasoning is terrible.--Yankees10 23:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure the "abandoned" thing is correct but if so it is because there are way more gridiron football players than other sport (50+ player teams). WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Close with no result nominating this whole batch of articles in one AfD is not especially helpful. These would be best evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Having said that, I personally think that anyone who gets drafted by an NFL team is probably notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (some) per WP:NCOLLATH #1, keep: Rob Havenstein (all-america), Shaquille Mason (all-america), Chaz Green (Freshman All american), No comment on others. ― Padenton|✉ 01:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them all for the time being. The real-world, practical custom has been to allow pages for drafted NFL rookies, because the coverage exists: football fans are insatiable in their desire for this stuff. Deletion may come later, if drafted rookie doesn't make a team, but it's just not helpful to fight over these pages during the period between the draft and the beginning of the season. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do agree that these pass GNG, but they are being created too quickly. If you're going to make a page, make the effort to put an infobox, a sentence or two about recruiting, college, and the combine. Maybe add measureables and combine stats. I disagree on making the page to add one line (see Tyeler Davison, Shaquille Riddick, others, etc.). I will work on adding infoboxes and stuff later, but don't make the page just with one line expecting others to add stuff later. There's four months until the season starts. Mpejkrm (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Theres no issue with the way I do it (or at least there shouldn't be). I've been doing it this way for years now, and I always add categories, infoboxes, more sources, etc within a week or so after the draft.--Yankees10 05:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand what the rush is to create all the pages so quickly. Why not take the time and effort to add all the information at once? Bland one line pages look bad. Mpejkrm (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because theres better something instead of a redlink. Like I said they don't stay like that for long.--Yankees10 05:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't care if they're kept or not (I don't see any great damage in keeping them), but I think we need a new guideline against having multiple AfD's in one -- I'm sick of being asked to spend my precious time in rummaging through a big fat list of candidates especially when some are more likely notable than others (like mixed nuts, heh), or when there's only one I care about due to a project I belong to. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:25, 3 May 2015 (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.