Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colt Lyerla

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. Nomination withdrawn Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colt Lyerla[edit]

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

This page about a one-year college football player does not meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Yoninah (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge. This seems to be barely notable, but if this player's team has an article on Wikipedia, it's possible he could be merged into it. LogicalCreator (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While we have a comically low bar for professional athletes of all sports, it is presumed that there is no path in for those playing at other levels. This is inaccurate. Having seen multiple feature stories on this University of Oregon football player in the state's newspaper of record, I feel confident that this is a simple GNG pass. See, for example Colt Lyerla makes big impact in Oregon Ducks' backfield," (Oregonian, Sept. 22, 2012); "Oregon Ducks tight end Colt Lyerla embraces new backfield role" (Oregonian, Sept. 24, 2012); "Oregon's Colt Lyerla, with help of Hillsboro Spartans family, overcomes childhood trials," (Oregonian, Sept. 29, 2012). That's three features in the main regional newspaper — multiple instances of substantial, independent published coverage. The Eugene Register-Guard, one of the three biggest newspapers in the state is archived by Questia and a simple search there generates a passel of hits, including "Lyerla Catches Attention All Around," (RG, May 1, 2011); "Lyerla Asked to Develop Quickly," (RG, Aug. 23, 2011); "Camp Starts Without Lyerla," (RG, Aug. 7, 2012); and "Colt Revs Up the Horsepower," (RG, Sept. 24 2012) (Subscription required.). It seems I saw something in Sports Illustrated recently as well, but that's already more than enough to clear any reasonable interpretation of GNG, I believe. I live in the Ducks' rival college town, for what it's worth, but I know a simple GNG pass when I see one. Carrite (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the Oregon Ducks are one of the top 5 collegiate American football teams of the 2012 season. The hype machine will only spin louder as the national championship approaches. Carrite (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, I just looked at the article for a first time. It is footnoted to the hilt with reliable material from an array of publications. Why is this challenge even happening?!? Carrite (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - BTW: here's the money section of WP:ATHLETE for collegiate level athletes: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage...." Carrite (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Carrite, you are only citing the beginning of the policy for college-level athletes. The full paragraph reads:
- College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who:
- Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.
- Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame).
- Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.
- As a player, Colt Lyerla has done none of the above. Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, what part of "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." does he not meet? The other bullet points you add are the OR part. As in how we usually interpret the word or in the English language. As in pass the first point, or pass the second list of criteria. Not both, as that would necessitate the use of "and" or a synonym to and. When I wrote the article I tried to avoid the trivial mentions in game coverage for this very reason, because after writing 400+ articles I sort of have the notability thing down. Now, that leads us to a side discussion, can you explain to us the reasoning behind Wikipedia's guidelines? Given the rationale in your nom and the content of the article, I have doubts. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same policy? The word "or" is part of the first sentence. The second sentence explains and embellishes the first. If the athlete is not the subject of routine coverage, then it means that he worn a national award, was inducted into a hall of fame, or gained national media attention. The only national coverage in the article is a list of ESPN news briefs. Aboutmovies, I respect your record on page creation, but I really don't think someone who's played college football for one year can be said to be notable. Yoninah (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets the GNG, enough said (and a quick look for more sources turns up many more). Also, dear nominator, did you (per the deletion policy) make a good faith attempt to locate sources that would help it meet notability? Aboutmovies (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a snowball. Subject has serious nationwide coverage and clearly passes WP:GNG. Has shown playing time as a freshman and sophomore in college and that play time has resulted in significant coverage in reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What nationwide coverage are you referring to? All the sources save the ESPN news briefs are Oregon papers. Yoninah (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The specific notability guideline (SNG) of WP:NCOLLATH is irrelevant when the subject clearly satisfies the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. Player has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, non-routine feature articles of which he was the primary topic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources cited above by Carrite and in article are plenty to satisfy WP:GNG. These are non-trivial article about Lyerta in mainstream media outlets, and there are plenty more. Cbl62 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty more ... where? If you click on the "news" tab, you get his write-up on the Ducks page. If you click on "books", you get nothing. If you click on "scholar", you get nothing. Yoninah (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have to click the "NEXT" link at the bottom of the page. Google News reports around 265 articles alone. Yes, many are from Oregon, but I'm seeing USA Today, ESPN, etc. Take off the "Google News" restriction and search just the web, and it reports more than 56,800 results.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG as documented by Carrite. Well-cited articles like this should not be deleted. --Esprqii (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Thanks, Paul McDonald, I was able to expand the search and locate a few national cites such as CBS Sports and Sports Illustrated (which was cited in the article under SI.com). I think that the article now meets the third qualification under WP:NCOLLATH: "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team". I herewith withdraw this deletion request. Yoninah (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2012 (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.