Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Hakel
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. —Darkwind (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Hakel[edit]
- Chris Hakel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Never played in a professional game. News coverage routine. Article was Deprodded asserting that Baltimore Sun was notable but the article I assert was routine. Articles about draft choices are quite common before and during training camp....William 14:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions....William 14:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions....William 14:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]
- Keep per GNG. I assert that the Baltimore Sun article about Hakel is not routine, which is why I removed the prod. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Baltimore Sun piece is not routine draft coverage, but a feature article about Hakel. AGF for the other offline sources, and you've met the GNG. I agree most people in his situation wouldn't be notable, but it appears this guy is... barely. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 18:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:NGRIDIRON. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does. However, this article doesn't do it--it is routine sports coverage (local color). Plus, multiple articles are generally required. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not AGFing the offline sources then. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also there is nothing in WP:ROUTINE that I can find to discount an article as a reference exclusively because it is "local color" --Paul McDonald (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does. However, this article doesn't do it--it is routine sports coverage (local color). Plus, multiple articles are generally required. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep See WP:NOTROUTINE as a response to the argument that a feature article is "routine coverage" --Paul McDonald (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is routine. Your so called feature article is 529 words in length. 500-700 word articles, take for instance this one[1], about a NFL team's draft picks are quite routine during the preseason....William 11:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response It is far above routine announcements and scores, as WP:ROUTINE sets the limit.--0Paul McDonald (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question how many words does an article need to have for you to consider it not "routine" ? WP:BIG discusses this "arbitrary" number theory and its fallacy, and although that is talking about notability quantityd I believe the same argument applies here. What's the cut-off for the number of words in an article to be "not routine" ?? I argue that the article size of the source is no measure of importance of that article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response It is far above routine announcements and scores, as WP:ROUTINE sets the limit.--0Paul McDonald (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is routine. Your so called feature article is 529 words in length. 500-700 word articles, take for instance this one[1], about a NFL team's draft picks are quite routine during the preseason....William 11:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not have significant coverage in multiple independent 3rd-party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how about these for starters: New York Times "William & Mary used the pinpoint passing of quarterback Chris Hakel and two long touchdown plays to defeat Navy, 26-21, today." (half the story covers him) Times Daily "Hakel Latest Redskin on injured reserve". Free Lance Star "Hakel expected to get his shot" Cavalier Daily "Tribe quarterback Chris Hakel was more than up to the task, completing 29 of 48 passes for 326 yards." Albany Herald "Chris Hakel is still on the Washington Redskins' injured reserve list, the seventh quarterback in the last euight years to be there."
- This may seem like a strange question, but he doesn't meet the notability criteria for football players at WP:NGRIDIRON so what is he notable for? 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NGRIDIRON is a specific notability guideline designed to mark a line of "presumed notability" but it is certainly not the only measure that notability can be achieved. WP:ABELINCOLN covers this in some detail, but an individual can achieve notability through the general notability guideline and still not have met the threshhold of WP:NGRIDIRON. Not all college football athletes are notable, but there are college football athletes that are notable who have not played professionally. In this case, I believe the subject passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NCOLLATH makes it clear how college athletes become notable even if they don't play professionally--and Hakel doesn't meet those criteria. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NCOLLATH makes one path clear. There are many paths to notability, and the guideline referenced agrees with that standpoint. I stay with my previous position that the coverage listed including the New York Times article is more than enough to establish notability for his college play and surpasses WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NCOLLATH makes it clear how college athletes become notable even if they don't play professionally--and Hakel doesn't meet those criteria. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NGRIDIRON is a specific notability guideline designed to mark a line of "presumed notability" but it is certainly not the only measure that notability can be achieved. WP:ABELINCOLN covers this in some detail, but an individual can achieve notability through the general notability guideline and still not have met the threshhold of WP:NGRIDIRON. Not all college football athletes are notable, but there are college football athletes that are notable who have not played professionally. In this case, I believe the subject passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This may seem like a strange question, but he doesn't meet the notability criteria for football players at WP:NGRIDIRON so what is he notable for? 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So far, among the three people who !voted delete: one of them isn't AGFing the offline sources after the claim that only one source exists; another won't answer the question as to how long he thinks an article's word count should be after he himself gave what he thinks is too minimum a word count; and the third was shown there are multiple, non-routine third party sources. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I think there are serious issues in the delete arguments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say there are obvious disagreements in what constitutes non-routine coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just saying you disagree is just an argument and not a discussion of the reasons why. Otherwise we end up in WP:WABBITSEASON. It's clear that there are obvious disagreements in what constitutes non-routine coverage. What isn't clear is why selected editors classify the coverage as "routine" -- however, the editors that classify the coverage as not routine and worth of passing WP:GNG have provided details to support that position. One editor posted that it is "routine" because an article source is between 500 and 700 words, but has failed to state why that matters nor what would make an article of 701 words "not routine" but 700 words "routine" -- we're calling for more details, we're not getting any.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I also find it curious how the IP editor can formulate an opinion on whether the offline sources are considered routine or not. You haven't read them, neither have I. That's why it's in good faith. The IP is making a generalization on every single source used in the article that they're not routine when in fact he's only been able to actually read one of them, a piece by the Baltimore Sun specifically on Hakel. Hmm... Jrcla2 (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably because the titles make things fairly clear--"Hakel cut","Hakel signs with Chiefs", "Hakel to William & Mary". It's not rocket science to figure out what those articles discuss.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I also find it curious how the IP editor can formulate an opinion on whether the offline sources are considered routine or not. You haven't read them, neither have I. That's why it's in good faith. The IP is making a generalization on every single source used in the article that they're not routine when in fact he's only been able to actually read one of them, a piece by the Baltimore Sun specifically on Hakel. Hmm... Jrcla2 (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just saying you disagree is just an argument and not a discussion of the reasons why. Otherwise we end up in WP:WABBITSEASON. It's clear that there are obvious disagreements in what constitutes non-routine coverage. What isn't clear is why selected editors classify the coverage as "routine" -- however, the editors that classify the coverage as not routine and worth of passing WP:GNG have provided details to support that position. One editor posted that it is "routine" because an article source is between 500 and 700 words, but has failed to state why that matters nor what would make an article of 701 words "not routine" but 700 words "routine" -- we're calling for more details, we're not getting any.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They should be excluded simply because it's routine sports reporting. Hundreds of football players sign with, and are cut by, NFL teams each year--that doesn't make them all notable. The local paper saying a local player is going to W&M isn't significant coverage (see WP:NCOLLATH). Even the Baltimore Sun article is simply reporting on someone signing with the nearest NFL team (at that time Baltimore didn't have an NFL team and the Redskins actually play in Maryland). Every draft pick gets coverage like that, it doesn't make them all notable. Where are the multiple sources showing significant non-routine coverage? I'm not seeing them.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say there are obvious disagreements in what constitutes non-routine coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I can't agree that the Baltimore Sun article, which focuses entirely on the subject of the article, is "routine". That rule is (IMHO) meant to rule out things like team lists or fixture results, not feature items in a noteworthy newspaper. AGFing on the offline sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:44, 22 September 2013 (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.