Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Genske

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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Genske

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

fails WP:GNG, most hits are about clients and work, not about the person. And the article is also most about the company, not about him. The Banner talk 15:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agents can be notable, if they are along the lines of Scott Boras. That Genske was the agent to numerous high profile players does not make him notable. All coverage is in passing, and not in significant depth as required by WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I Think the Sports Business Daily profile pushes him over the threshold but it's by a slim margin. Article certainly needs better sourcing as the client list is entirely unsourced. Perhaps rename the article to focus more on the Agency itself. Spanneraol (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was gonna say that Sports Business Daily profile is really about the agency, and not about the agent. An article on the agency might be notable, but the agents seems not to be. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I carefully saved this article to the Baseball Wiki. BTW, that's NOT spam, it's just an information that i use to save articles to Wikia projects before they probably cease to exist--Saviour1981 (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, in my opinion you are spamming that wikia thingy with that link. The Banner talk 23:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more time the accusation of spam and the AIAV will await of you --Saviour1981 (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, no serious arguments left so you start making threats.

The Banner talk 00:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not funny :-( --Saviour1981 (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - conditional. The current article is nothing but spam for The Legacy Agency. Remove the The Legacy Agency section those irrelevant lists of clients and then see what's left. If reliable, in depth, 3rd party sources can be found to assert notability per WP:BIO, then keep, but otherwise delete without prejudice to creating a stand alone article for The Legacy Agency if it can pass WP:GNG and WP:Org. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though I agree with Kudpung on the current status of the article, I disagree with The Banner on GNG - via HighBeam Research, I found several articles that seem to go beyond "trivial mentions" and thus would satisfy GNG, as well as one regarding him as a trial lawyer prior to sports – [1][2][3][4] – while admittedly those articles do not directly pertain to him, rather to his advocacy for his clients, outside of a feature article on him, nothing is going to directly pertain to him. As such, I support keeping the article, albeit a rather weak support. Go Phightins! 20:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Poorly sourced which makes this person not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUST. The fact that the article is poorly sourced is not by itself reason to delete anything. Spanneraol (talk) 17:18, 25 December 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) 19:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking here about a living person. So WP:BLP applies. The Banner talk 20:38, 26 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2014 (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.