Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick McCrank (2nd nomination)

Add links
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. (non-admin closure) MarioJump83! 09:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rick McCrank[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Rick McCrank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article which was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick McCrank, then draftified, scrubbed for copyvio and then immediately moved back into mainspace without a proper WP:AFC review. But copyvio isn't the grounds on which it was originally deleted: it was deleted for lacking reliable source support for his notability, and that issue hasn't been addressed at all. The sourcing here is still virtually identical to what wasn't acceptable the first time, as it's still referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability: the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, YouTube videos, glancing namechecks of his existence in television listings, and Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person. There still isn't a single reference here that represents reliable journalistic attention from a source that's intellectually independent of his own voice. As always, the notability test is not passed by the things the article says he did, it's passed by the quality of the references that can be shown to support the things the article says -- and the references here still aren't cutting it any better than they did in October. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 17:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject fails WP:SIGCOV and therefore fails WP:SPORTCRIT, as I can only find one somewhat reliable and independent source on McCrank, and it is not even cited in this article. Some of the references are dead and some are unreliable and extremely short, and the quality of them is quite dreadful. Coreykai (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I respectfully disagree. Please go through the sources and compare to the previous version. I worked to add reliable sources. I also improved the copy. The last discussion was ended and the article deleted before meaningful conversation could be had. Please do not rush to delete this article. I'm going to review it again to see if there are additional changes and sources I could add. Rick McCrank is undoubtedly notable in skateboarding, somewhat like Scottie Pippin is to basketball. --Wil540 art (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, those don't cut it. "Staff" profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, such as his "bio from a speaking engagement", are not notability-supporting sources, so "Pushing Boarders" isn't helping. Directory entries aren't notability-supporting sources, so "XGames aka ESPN profile" isn't helping. Corporate blogs aren't notability-supporting sources, so "The Berrics" isn't helping. WordPress blogs aren't notability-supporting sources, so "Skate News Wire" isn't helping.
The thing you need to understand is that notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is not a question of the things a person does, it's a question of how much attention is or isn't being independently paid to the things he does by real media. People can and do make inflated claims about their importance in their self-published content about themselves, for example, so the things people claim about themselves in their own PR don't make them notable — notability requires the facts to be independently verified as accurate by media outlets that don't have a vested interest in the subject's career. So notability isn't established by just any webpage you can find that has his name in it: it isn't built on YouTube videos, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of companies or organizations that have direct business relationships with him, Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person, directory entries, or blogs of any stripe. It's built on third party, third person journalism, in real established media of record and real books, and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree on your descriptions of my sources. I think you hold anti-skateboarding bias, which honestly is not uncommon and I don't judge you for it, I just think you don't understand how notability works in skateboarding. I've added 4 more sources, books with ISBN numbers, to the article. The thing you need to understand is that Rick McCrank is notable. --Wil540 art (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wil540 art! I agree with Bearcat, sorry. One of the sources is a short summary of an Instagram post, one is a profile saying nothing of him and from an unreliable source, and the other is a clearly self-written biography. The only one that is possibly useable is the last one, which is still questionable as it is clear that McCrank participated in the creation of the article, and it is a lot of fluff. Even if this was useable, it would be the one singular source for this article, and it is a press release which is not considered independent according to WP:GNG. I'm really sorry, but I disagree. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and anyone with a skateboard and some money to pay someone to write a press release about them, could do this. I understand that notability works different with skateboarding, which is exactly why you don't see a lot of skateboarders with their own Wikipedia article. Coreykai (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coreykai did you have a chance to look at the four book citations I added to the article? --Wil540 art (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wil540 art! I did actually look at them, and they are honestly your best argument yet. But the article is over-sourced now and unfortunately, my opinion still has not changed. If we have already gotten thus far, we need to speak more generally. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is hard to imagine Rick in a physical encyclopedia. He does have some notability, but it seems to all come from his one documentary, Abandoned. On top of it, all your new additions of the book sources have just passing mentions of him, which wouldn't be a problem if the article already had a steady foundation of references, but it does not. You cannot base of an entire encyclopedic article off of a few books with passing mentions of the subject. Also, please consider removing the dead or unreliable references the next time you ask us to review your new references :) Coreykai (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Coreykai, I shouldn't need to ask you to review the references. If you aren't reviewing the references, you shouldn't be commenting on Articles for deletion. That said, I will look through and see if there is any clean-up I can do. "it is hard to imagine Rick in a physical encyclopedia" - this is argument also makes no sense. It seems both CoreyKai and Bearcat hold anti-skateboarding bias. Can we get some other opinions in here? --Wil540 art (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wil540 art, I tried staying calm with you and I still will, please try and do the same. First of all, I do not have an anti-skateboarding mindset. It is not that I do not like skateboarders, it is just harder to get a Wikipedia page as one. Second of all, we have already presented you with a multitude of arguments, and my comment about it being hard for me to imagine Rick in a physical encyclopedia was just me trying to help you understand the logic and sense behind our arguments. Lastly, there are literal dead references and blatantly unreliable references, in this article. I simply asked you to delete these the next time you ask us to review your new ones so we don't have to go through all of the useless ones when looking for your new references. I did not appreciate the subtle attack, and this will probably be the last time I address this discussion. I also hope you realize Bearcat is an administrator, so there is little point in arguing this when an admin has already provided such proper arguments for the deletion of this article. Coreykai (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any "anti-skateboarding bias", and your claim that I do is (a) absurd, and (b) unsupported by any evidence. This isn't a question of "how notability works in skateboarding" — it's a question of how notability works in Wikipedia, namely that it has to be supported by a certain specific type and class and volume of reliable source coverage in real media and books. There is no notability claim, in any human occupation, that entitles an article about the person to rest on bad, unreliable sources that aren't legitimate support for Wikipedia notability instead of reliable sources that count toward WP:GNG, and there's no human occupation where the fans get to independently make up their own special occupation-specific exemptions from Wikipedia's standard inclusion and sourceability rules. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree Bearcat. Your use and understanding of "unaffiliated media", "directly affiliated organizations", and "Corporate blogs" in skateboarding shows clear anti-skateboarding bias. Yes, there is such thing as reliable independent skateboard media. Not all skate entities are affiliated, to imply otherwise is biased and frankly incorrect. The article contains good reliable sources including: Vancouver Sun, SBS television network, Transworld SKATEboarding, Thrasher magazine, ESPN, Jenkem Magazine, Viceland, and multiple books. What more do you want? --Wil540 art (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can respectfully disagree all you like, but it doesn't make me incorrect about how notability works in Wikipedia. A "staff" profile on the self-published website of a person's own employer is not a notability-building source, "coverage" on the self-published websites of commercial companies with whom the subject has a direct sponsorship deal are not notability-building sources, speaker profiles on the self-published websites of conferences or events that he's spoken at are not notability-supporting sources, blogs are not notability-supporting sources, Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person instead of being written about in the third person are not notability-supporting sources, directory entries are not notability-supporting sources, sources which briefly mention the subject's name in the process of not being about him are not support for notability, content on user-generated social networking platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or YouTube is not notability-supporting sourcing, and on and so forth. This doesn't work differently in skateboarding than it does in hockey, football, music, television, film, politics or science: there are certain types of sources that are valid support for notability and certain types of sources that are not valid support for notability, and the fact that an article subject happens to be a skateboarder does not mean you get any special skateboarding-specific dispensation to rest on the bad kind of sourcing instead of the good kind.
So let's review: Vancouver Sun, Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself. SBS, namechecks his existence but is not about him in any non-trivial sense. Transworld, Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself. Thrasher, Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself. ESPN, directory entry. Jenkem, mentions his name but is not about him. The Viceland sources are not coverage about him, but simply their "our programs" directory of their own shows.
A person is not notable for hosting a TV show just because you can reference the fact to the show's own self-published page on the website of the network that airs it — to make a person notable for hosting a TV show, journalists have to write third party, third person news articles about his hosting of a TV show in newspapers or magazines. A person is not notable for winning an award or a medal just because you can reference the fact to the awarding organization's own directory of its own winners — to make a person notable for winning an award, journalists have to write third party, third person articles which treat "Rick McCrank wins award/prize/medal" as a news story. And on and so forth. Notability always works the same way, no matter what domain you're trying to demonstrate that a person is notable in: it's not the things you say, it's the amount of reliable source third party coverage about him in real media that can or can't be shown to support the things you say. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rick McCrank is one of the most globally well-known and successful skateboarders of the last 30 years. He has featured prominently and consistently in skateboard print media over the last three decades. I can understand why those unfamiliar with skateboarding sources might question whether Thrasher, Transworld Skateboarding etc. are “real media.” However, they are just as reliable as any other high-circulation sporting or art-cultural magazine. They typically combine ‘factual journalism’ (the reporting of skateboard contexts, industry news, interviews etc.) alongside opinion pieces—just as Sports Illustrated, Slam, or 4-4-2 do. A professional journalist for Thrasher is just as much a valid subject expert as a professional journalist for one of these more ‘mainstream’ sporting publications. However, there are also plenty of traditional ‘factual’ journalistic sources about Rick McCrank. I searched for "rick mccrank" on the (subscription-only) LexisNexis news database. My search came up with 138 separate regional and national newspaper articles mentioning him from 2000-2016. Some are syndicated (i.e. duplicates) or TV listings, but many aren’t—and they talk about him a lot. This is undoubtedly real media. Reading the discussion here, it seems clear that Wikipedia has a blind spot when it comes to skateboarding topics—probably because skateboarding is such a closed subculture to the uninitiated. And I get that. --Eklektikos (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Wil540 art (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Wil540 art (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here are a few additional mainstream sources that might help support notability at this time. One might also consider that presence in a publication like Thrasher that is well-known not just to the skater community helps make the case. If in time, this doesn't hold up it could be revisited then.
    • McCrank, Rick. “Riding a Rail with Rick McCrank.(Features/Tips From The Pros).” Sports illustrated for kids 13.9 (2001): 84–. Print.
    • Burnett, Michael. “Rick McCrank.” Thrasher (San Francisco, Calif.) 400 (2013): 160–. Print.
    • Burnett, Michael. "Rick McCrank." Thrasher, no. 330, Mar. 2008, p. 150+. Gale General OneFile. Accessed 18 Dec. 2020. (In this interview the skater mentions Wikipedia in a positive light.)
    • Scott, Kevin. “It’s Not About Winning, Man, Skating Is Art: Toronto Edition.” National post (Toronto) 2 May 2003: n. pag. Print. (" Rick McCrank, the reigning supremo of Vancouver skaters") --Mozucat (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Wil540 art (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 31 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rick_McCrank_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=999272350"