Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Cooper

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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Cooper

Declined prod. Although the article claims "plays for the Minnesota Vikings" there have been no appearances. This fails the standard notability guidelines at WP:ATHLETE: "competed at the fully professional level of a sport". As a college player he is not particularly notable (no awards, championships etc). No prejudice to recreating the article if he ever competes. Tassedethe (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I generally don't like splitting the hair about whether someone played or not. They got signed by a pro team and that satisfies me. If a guy spends 10 years on a team and never plays a down, he still made his living as a pro athlete. He is currently on their roster, so I'm going with the keep. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree, he still is a professional football player. OtisJimmyOne 07:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet played at professional level - being employed by a team isn't enough. The athlete has to make the step up to play.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I agree with the other keep rationales but I'm not going to argue with that because that just is pointless and irrelevant discussion, he's notable because in college he was a two time all Big 12 selection I would think that means something, but since we're here at AfD, I guess not...--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 14:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was a three-year starter at a major college program (Oklahoma) in the BCS, and was recognized by one of the top BCS conferences twice, which is no small feat. He started on the national championship runner-up team last season, and started on a team in a BCS bowl all three years. It's generally a safe bet that someone with a resume like that is going to pass WP:GNG through media coverage, even at an unglamorous position like center: Scout.com, Scout.com, Scout, Scout, The Oklahoman, The Sporting News, Rivals.com, Rivals, Rivals, The Norman Transcript, Sports Illustrated, The Tulsa World, Rocky Mountain News, The Oklahoman, The Oklahoman, The Denver Post, The Financial Times, etc. That's after sorting through half of these Google News hits. Strikehold (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above was pretty convincing. -- œ ^™ 13:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This looks like it's heading for a "keep", meaning that we have one more example of American exceptionalism. The Wikiprojects for football, cricket, the rugby codes, the Gaelic sports, Australian rules football etc. have no problem with sticking to WP:ATHLETE, and those project members are usually the first to call for deletion of articles on players that don't pass the guideline. Why can't North American sports be subject to the same rules as everone else? And please don't claim that the subject has had coverage in the Financial Times - that report is from University Wire. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why I'm bothering to reply to a post that uses polemics like "American exceptionalism", but did you consider that there might be a difference because the United States is more than three times as populous as the other Anglophone countries combined? Or that maybe there is an "exception" for the United States because collegiate sports are inherently more significant there? Those other projects are free to do whatever they want, even if that means they ignore the notability guidelines I suppose. And that article's copyright is cited as The Financial Times. Strikehold (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright is with the Financial Times, because it runs a wire service for minor publications such as University Wire. That's totally different from an article being published in the actual Financial Times newspaper. The rest of your comments just underline the American exceptionalism argument. "Three times as populous as the other anglophone countries combined" - well even if that's true (how about India, Pakistan, South Africa, the Phillipines etc.?) this is an encyclopedia about the whole world (or universe to be pedantic), so there's certainly no reason to bias our coverage towards North American sports, rather than football and cricket, which are played in countries with much larger populations. And "collegiate sports are inherently more significant there"? "Inherently more significant" is precisely the language of American exceptionalism. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, university sports are taken more seriously in the United States than other countries. I'm not sure how Wikipedia acknowledging this can possibly be a problem. matt91486 (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, if it is copyrighted by the Financial Times, and distributed through their own wire service, it seems accurate to attribute it as such. If it was copyrighted by Reuters or AP or a newspaper, I would have attributed it as such. English isn't the primary language in India, Pakistan, South Africa, or the Philippines. Collegiate sports are more significant in the United States than they are in other countries; that is a fact, not opinion. And since I guess we're making generalizations about each other's arguments: that is "precisely the language of" anti-Americanism. Strikehold (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Strikehold's sources. matt91486 (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Strikehold's sources. Cbl62 (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he has not competed at the fully professional level of a sport as per WP:ATHLETE with no real additional notability, and so just like in every other sport, he should be deleted. Yes, college/university sport is taken more seriously in America, and Wikipedia should acknowledge this, but doing so player-by-player (matt91486, above) because it is popular in America really would be an example of American exceptionalism. 81.96.65.76 (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Cooper meets WP:ATHLETE is entirely a non-issue if he meets WP:GNG—WP:ATHLETE is an additional criteria and makes notability easier, not harder. You cannot delete based on not meeting it, but rather only on the more stringent WP:BIO (which WP:GNG addresses). I believe he does, in spades, due to the extensive media coverage I provided above. Aside from that, disregarding the fact that many, if not most, American college football and basketball players are far more notable (by any measure other than paycheck) than professional lacrosse, Aussie rules footballers, Gaelic footballers, even ice hockey players, and competitors in world championship events like pool and poker, and many Olympians would be nonsensical. 81.96.65.76 you are willing to exempt a semi-professional English footballer who does not meet WP:ATHLETE and may even fail WP:GNG, but on the other hand you are basically saying that almost no American college athletes should be notable. That is contradictory, and well, I'd say that is English exceptionalism or non-American exceptionalism (i.e. all rules apply to the U.S. but not necessarily anywhere else). What are your feelings, then, on American college soccer players? There is no pyramid system there and colleges provide the majority of players to the professional American soccer leagues like the MLS. Strikehold (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2009 (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.