Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Wilson

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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Wilson

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

Not a professional athlete Eucberar (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom is right he's not professional, but there seems to be a lot of coverage about him nonetheless, thus allowing him to pass WP:ATHLETE. Redfarmer (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage on him. Especially the Auburn game. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. If this gets deleted someone will have to make one after the season because this kid will be the starting QB of an SEC football team. He is and will become more notable soon.WP:ATHLETE. Razorback2011 (talk 11:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC) — Razorback2011 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The ones above pretty much sum it up.Razorback2012 (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC) — Razorback2012 (talk • contribs) is the article creator and has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock vote struck[reply]
Keep Agree with the above comments. Plus it looks like the person who did this spent some time on the editing. Tyler Wilson is a huge name in the state of Arkansas and surrounding area and the name will continue to grow. Razorback2012 gives plenty of sources. Hogman8 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC) — Hogman8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock vote struck.[reply]
Keep Wilson was on ESPN this summer for an interview. Here is the link [8] ESPN is a very big media market, just FYI. Realdealonthehill (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC) — Realdealonthehill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. sock vote struck. [reply]
Comment Can I assume we have a sockpuppet at work since one of the SPAs appears to have voted twice and cited his own vote? Redfarmer (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assumption is correct, I am sorry I just feel this article is valid and that there is enough sources to confirm this needing an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razorback2012 (talk • contribs)
Delete The link to Google news pretty well confirms that there are lots of people named "Tyler Wilson". Even starting quarterbacks for college football teams are not automatically notable, and Wilson is a backup. I'm willing to hear arguments in the name of User:Razorback2010 and User:Razorback2013 if someone wishes to create those accounts... Mandsford 14:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're right. Just got ahead a delete it. I'm sure someone will make a new one soon. Not a big deal.72.204.0.29 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even from what I read in the article, it looks like he's not achieved notability yet for his college play.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. A few more comments from non socks would be helpful here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not derserving for a wikipeadia article. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep would seem to meet WP:N though the mentions are largely pretty short. But the sources are there... Hobit (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I really hope that those calling to keep didn't simply look at the references, see ESPN and yahoo.com and declare "well golly, good enough." Because if one actually, y'know, clicks on the ESPN one or the yahoo.com one, one sees they are just statistical rundowns, ones that exist for pretty much every athlete. That plus the razorbacks.com press release are not eve remotely enough for the WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment don't sweat it--if an inclusionist like me doesn't want a piece of this, it's gonna get deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said short. [9], [10] are certainly independent non-trivial coverage. [11] may be a SPS, I can't tell but it looks fairly good. [12] is an interview and sources like: [13] add a tiny bit. If the hogdb site is a RS and not self-published, we are above the WP:N guideline. So close enough for a weak keep. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources not really up to scratch, per Tarc. Otherwise, fails notability.--Korruski^Talk 14:36, 29 November 2010 (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.