Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Meier

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. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Meier

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

Contested prod based on the fact that the subject of the article played for a Big 12 college football team. This, however, does not meet WP:ATHLETE, as college is neither fully professional nor the highest level of amateur competition. Having checked the stats from the external link, this article is a rewrite of that page with many word-for-word lifts like "experienced signal caller," so there is a potential case of copyvio here as well. MSJapan (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NCAA Div 1 is the highest level of amateur football since there is no world championships or olympics. Meets WP:ATHLETE. However I would like to see some references. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, NCAA Div 1 is 'the highest level of amateur football', in one sense - but you have MANY teams. 'highest level' specifically talks about 'world championships', not even national championships, let alone being a member of a team which belongs to the league. Simply being on a Div 1 team has to fail WP:ATHLETE miserably. Now... If he was on a team that played in the Rose Bowl, say, or if his team was first ranked, then we should consider it. Just being on a Div 1 team? nope. IMO. David V Houston (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the added information that he has played in two professional leagues. Meets WP:ATHLETE through playing professionally, so the fact that he may or may not meet as a amateur is moot. -DJSasso (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although there is argument about WP:ATHLETE (which I interpret that the subject does meet) there is also more than enough widespread coverage Over 1600 Google News articles alone of his career that the general notability guideline also is met. Either way, it's a keepper.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep discussion in past deletion cases, IRC, comes up with 2 generalizations: 1. WP:ATHLETE is severely outdated and not specific enough 2. starters for colleges in major conferences (Big 12 is considered major) are notable (although I have notice a little bit of favoritism towards quarterbacks when articles of players of other positions who meet notability guidelines are sometimes deleted.. but what position the player played shouldn't have an impact their notability.) He was considered the best QB in the Big 12 after the 2004 season.. and the Big 12 has done pretty well with QB's (this is sort of a generalization, but oh well). Anyways, he was notable in college, & notable because he played pro football (even if it was in Europe). RF23 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Not 100% sure if the Italian or German leagues are fully professional or semi-pro, which would impact his meeting WP:ATHLETE. However, if this is an accurate indication, there are enough sources out there for him to be notable, as is often the case with high-profile position players from major-conference teams. I will add the caveat that I haven't checked the copyvio claims yet. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It's a complete article. I'd ask Meier but since he's dead ... DUden (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above - does seem to pass the general notability guideline at the least. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:31, 28 April 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.