Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehn Joyner

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 delete. I am more persuaded by the delete arguments around the necessity of independent sourcing for a BLP then keep arguments that articles that are basically interviews are independent. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jehn Joyner

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found these sources which show he is notable in Northern Mariana Islands: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. In addition, he is a young, already internationally capped player (4th most capped in his country) with an ongoing career who helped Northern Mariana Islands youth team beat Macau 2-1 their first international win at any level , one of few Northern Mariana Islands players to ever play abroad, and is mentioned in countless match reports and videos. I feel like the nominator specifically tries to delete only football articles en masse for no reason. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I write this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV is? I doubt it. The second article is not independent of the subject, as it primarily relies on quotes from the subject. #3 and #4 are clearly not significant coverage of the person. Both articles discuss the subject for less than 100 words, which means it fails the WP:100 words criteria. The fifth source mentions the subject's name four times, all in a trivial manner. The sixth source mentions the subject once, to introduce a quote, which of course is not independent of the subject. The seventh source mentions the source three times, all trivial mentions of the subject such as "Joyner provided the go-ahead point in the 53rd minute". Please stop spamming these AFD discussions with links that clearly do not demonstrate GNG. It is distruptive. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither WP:SIGCOV or WP:INDEPENDENT says newspaper interviews (or any interviews for that matter) make the article not independent of the subject. Nfitz (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Literally WP:SIGCOV says "Independent of the subject". An interview with the subject is not independent of the subject lol. I don't know how else to put it, but clearly you are not understanding what WP:INDEPNDENT is. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go back and read it again. There is literally no mention of interviews - let alone articles that partially incorporate interviews in national newspapers. SIGCOV also links to INDPENDENT which also has no mention of interviews, etc. The issue is press releases and their ilk, not interviews by national newspapers. Nfitz (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources 1 and 2 cited above (which were never rebutted by nominator) are by themselves sufficient to get us over GNG, which is sufficient to keep the article regardless of whether the other sources provided also do. Although the sources are not currently cited in the article as allegedly required by NSPORT, GNG does not require that, and if the article meets GNG, it should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2 as listed on the comment right above yours, is primarily quotes from the subject. This would fail "independent of the subject". One source is not enough to satisfy GNG or SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out the criteria that say articles that include an interview are not "independent of the subject". Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is pretty self explanatory. A person giving an interview about themself, is not independent. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's not self-explanatory. It might not be the best reference for a particular questionable fact; but that a national newspaper is publishing articles that include in-depth interviews is meeting GNG. There are no Wikipedia guidelines or policies to support your claim. I asked for you to point out the relevant Wikipedia criteria about interviews, and you only waved your hands, and offered your opinion. Please stop nominating articles on this basis - it is disruptive. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 15:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Source 1 isn't enough. Dougal18 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the sources, the article on him making the USF dean's list is probably the best of the bunch but there isn't a whole lot there once you take away the qoutes from his teacher and parents. The other sources from saipantribune.com are a couple of match reports [1][2] and mention of him winning a student award[3]. But if we treat the first as sigcov, the others don't count towards GNG as multiple publications from the organization is generally regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Of the mvariety.com sources, this one is mostly based on his own words and thus a primary source and the other two are match reports[4][5] have trivial menions of him. Alvaldi (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article about non-notable individual with few sources. Making the Dean's list does not earn someone a Wikipedia article. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the newspaper sources clearly meet GNG. Nominator is falsely claiming that newspaper articles that include interviews are not independent of the subject - despite there being no mention of such criteria in either WP:SIGCOV or WP:INDEPENDENT. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first Saipan Tribune source, announcing he made his college honor roll, is pretty much the definition of "local news hype" and is not remotely encyclopedic. Every student making the Dean's list gets a letter sent home about it, and sometimes their parents send it on to their local newspaper because they are proud of their child -- which is clearly what happened here given the quotes from the father. This is totally routine non-news and doesn't count toward GNG N. The first Marianas Variety source has three non-quote sentences: not remotely SIGCOV N. The second Saipan Tribune ref is more hyperlocal news announcing he won the "TSL Foundation Male Student Athlete of the Month", which can be immediately disregarded per YOUNGATH N. The second Marianas Variety source is a namedrop and two quotes: obviously not SIGCOV N. The third ST source is a routine match recap N. The third MV source is one quote from him N. The fourth ST source is more of the hyperlocal youth coverage excluded by YOUNGATH N. Quotes, whether enclosed in quotation marks or not, and whether explicitly part of an interview or not, cannot contribute to GNG as they are not independent appraisals of the subject (obviously) and are primary. There is no such thing as "the fact he was interviewed shows he's notable" because GNG is met through significant secondary independent published commentary on a subject in multiple RS, not achievements or other non-SIGCOV "evidence" that the subject has been recognized. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NBASIC (No multiple independent sources where combining demonstrates notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.) and WP:SPORTCRIT. Sources do not provide enough independent significant coverage for much more than a pseudo biography (nothing near "full and balanced") which is a requirement for a BLP. This is just a listing of a team player. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BASIC Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. This is a BLP and its insufficient. scope_creep^Talk 04:44, 20 August 2022 (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.