Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rylan Reed
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rylan Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails to meet notability guidelines WP:NCOLLATH and WP:BASEBALL/N. NThomas (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - given the expansion. Many minor leaguers have a comparable amount of press but get deleted. Taking the time to do the expansion makes this one a keeper.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. After beating cancer, he became a first-team All-American football player at Texas Tech. Satisfies both WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG. Offensive linemen almost never get glory or news coverage, but the truly exceptional ones do. Reed is one of the truly exceptional ones. Examples of news coverage include: (1) Intimidating Reed once made minor-league hitters quiver, ESPN.com, Nov. 17, 2008; (2) Recovering Reed sets Tech weight-lifting mark, ESPN.com, July 28, 2008; (3) Texas Tech happily lays it on the line: Blockers aim to pave way vs. No. 1 Texas, USA Today, Oct. 30, 2008; (4) Tech's Reed goes from diamond to gridiron: From mound to mountain; Once a pitcher, Tech's Rylan Reed thrives at tackle, Houston Chronicle, November 18, 2008; (5) Reed anchors Red Raiders' offensive front after his triumph against cancer, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Oct. 6, 2007; (6) Older, wiser Reed a steady influence for Red Raiders, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Oct. 31, 2008; (7) Texas Tech Lineman Rylan Reed Bench Presses 625, KCBD, July 28, 2008; (8) Crossett Native Rylan Reed a 'Warrior' at T-Tech, Arkansas Sports 360, (9) From baseball to battling cancer, Texas Tech's Reed has thrived: For Tech's Reed, life is beautiful, Houston Chronicle, Oct. 9, 2007; (10) Cancer scare led 'lucky' Reed to football, Connecticut Post, Jan 18, 2009; (11) Raiders tackle progressing well from ankle injury, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Aug. 21, 2008, (12) Tackle hopes to find zone against touted Virginia DL, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dec. 26, 2007; (13) Preparation makes perfect, TriCities.com (Tennessee), Jan. 2, 2009; (14) Texas Tech story about Reed shattering bench press record; (15) Reed has learned to just enjoy the ride: All-American has overcome cancer, tragedy, New Haven Register, Jan. 17, 2009; (16) "Live strong Reed, 26, overcomes cancer, tragedy to anchor Raiders' O-line," The Dallas Morning News, Sept. 4, 2008; (17) Setbacks haven't stopped Texas Tech's Rylan Reed, Denton Record-Chronicle (reprinted from The Dallas Morning News), Sept. 3, 2008; (18) "Crossett's Reed Picks Baseball Over Hogs," Pine Bluff Commercial (Arkansas), Aug. 8, 2000; and (19) "Reed trades UA football for baseball," Southwest Times Record (Fort Smith, Ark.), Aug. 8, 2000. Throw in four years of minor league baseball as a pitcher summarized here. Add it all up and you've got a notable athlete. Cbl62 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reed is a great guy with a good character, but four years in the minor leagues doesn't make a person notable according to WP:BASEBALL/N. I can find 10 stories for almost any Division I-FBS football player, that doesn't make them notable. NThomas (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is actually a very small percentage (less than 1%) of college football players who receive the kind of extensive non-trivial coverage needed to satisfy either WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. The few who do pass our standards. As for your claim, "I can find 10 stories for almost any Division I-FBS football player," it's just not so. Many players get the occasional routine passing reference in game coverage (or a stat line), but not this type of feature story coverage in national news media and major daily newspapers. And he was a first-team All-American to boot. Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple source. While I often cite that GNG says that notability is only presumed, and allows that consensus can choose to override its acceptance critieria, this is not one of those cases. His WP:IMPACT is being a two-sport athlete (even if not at the top level) and his first-team All-American honors in his senior year after recovering from cancer.—Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Easily meets GNG. Not only are there plenty of non-trivial articles, but there are several from non-local or national publications (New Haven Register, Connecticut Post, ESPN, etc.). cmadler (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources above are enough to satisfy WP:GNG for me, which trumps WP:BASEBALL/N every day of the week. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 16:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Adequate coverage to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 04:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepPygmypony (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2011 (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.