Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Winterswyk

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Winterswyk

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG per [1].--Giants27(T|C) 19:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If he was signed this year then he should be playing very soon. I think its a huge waste of time to delete the article based on him not yet playing a game and then turn around and recreate it a month later. --Kumioko (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to speculate whether Winterswyk will ever play in an NFL game this year or ever. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Also did not qualify under NSPORTS with his college achievements, that might also have assume notability of this player. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. ~~He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.~~ WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL. —Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Has been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in mainstream media. Not just passing references in game coverage, but articles with coverage focused on him. See, e.g., [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Cbl62 (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to be non-routine coverage, and I strike it from my previous comment. However, I still consider him WP:Run-of-the-mill, and GNG says "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." WP:IAR policy says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I dont think an at best above-average college player who went undrafted deserves a stand-alone article. No prejudice to recreate if he ever plays in a notable professional league.—Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did WP:Run-of-the-mill become a deletion policy? And also, I don't think anywhere here agrees with you that WP:GNG should be ignored because this guy isn't some superstar. If there are enough sources to write an article, then he deserves an article.--Giants27(T|C) 02:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Run-of-the-mill is mentioned in WP:ROUTINE, and WP:ROUTINE is mentioned in WP:GNG. While we can disagree on whether he is run-of-the-mill, GNG does not say to blindly count sources to determine notability, but rather that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." —Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Because on Wikipedia notability is not temporary, it would make sense not to close this discussion too soon. BusterD (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of the Keep comments explain why this non-drafted athlete is notable. --Slashme (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to me that this notability discussion rests on one rock: playing in the NFL. Subject hasn't met that standard yet (sorry, User:Cbl62, with due respect, for my categorizing your GNG sources as routine sports coverage). Not all college athletes are notable, and this one's not going in any hall-of-fame based on his experience so far. This AJC blog suggests he'd be fighting as the seventh of eight tight ends on the eighty-man August 30 cut. This article today makes clear that Simmons is cut, putting subject fifth of six TEs active (with Peelle recovering from injury). How many TEs does the 53 man roster hold? Four? Maybe five? Just in case you're wondering, Coach Smith says three. So this subject is right on the knife edge of meeting WP:NSPORTS, but not anywhere close yet. IMHO, we userfy this space, or relist once more (on the 27th) in order to meet the September 3 final roster date. BusterD (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This professional blog from AJC from Monday shows subject is sixth of seven tight ends on the depth chart (now sixth of six). Tony Gonzales won't be cut, and they didn't bring Reggie Kelly in to cut him either (though he may not work out in their system). So I see four athletes fighting for one spot, and this subject didn't play the position in college (though he caught three last weekend). See no way to assess this discussion as keep without that September 3 roster. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His notability is not dependent on his playing in the NFL. As noted above, he received substantial, non-trivial news coverage for his college football career. College football players who have had such coverage qualify under WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: We continue to disagree on this issue. Is your position that every college athlete who meets GNG using newspaper sports sections for sourcing is notable enough for inclusion? IMHO that's an unnecessarily broad interpretation of GNG. What about WP:NOTNEWS? BusterD (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An athlete can meet notability standards through either WP:GNG or WP:ATH. Either suffices, though GNG is the overarching and ultimately controlling principle. That said, I do not take the position that every college football player is notable. Only those who have received significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. It's actually a pretty small percentage of college football players who meet that standard. Second-stringers almost never do. Even most starters at non-skill positions don't get enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Likewise, players who play for teams that aren't in the top tier of programs also typically don't get enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. But the top players, and particularly those at the skill positions, at the top tier teams (like Boise State, Alabama, USC, Florida, etc.) do get a lot of coverage in the mainstream media. That subsection of college football players is probably < 1% (educated guess) of the total pool of college football players. Each player should be evaluated case by case. If there's sufficient coverage in the mainstream media, excluding routine coverage (e.g., passing references in game coverage, stat lines, etc.), then WP:GNG is satisifed. If not, I have voted to "delete" articles on college football players. As we've discussed before, the WP:GNG standard is (and should be the same) for athletes as it is for businessmen, entertainers, government officials, or anyone else. There are some who believe athletics is trivial and who would therefore require more extensive coverage of athletes than they would of businessmen. As a long-time researcher and student of sports history, I believe that athletes and athletics have done as much or more good for human civilization and culture than politicians and businessmen. We all have our subjective views, but those should not control our decisions as to what is or isn't notable. An in-depth profile of an athlete in the sports section of a major daily newspaper is entitled to the same weight in assessing notability as a profile of a hedge fund manager in the business section of the same newspaper. (On the assertion that the coverage of Winterswyk is "routine," even Bagumba (no fan of articles on college football players) acknowledges that the coverage is non-routine. Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have now substantially expanded the article with multiple reliable sourcing and discussion about an impressive college career at Boise State. Despite starting as a walk on, he was a four-year starter for Boise State teams that went 38-2 from 2008 to 2010. He was a first-team All-WAC player three straight years and was picked as the Most Valuable Defensive Player on Boise State's undefeated 2008 and 2009 teams. Was written up in Sports Illustrated, Los Angeles Times, ESPN, and elsewhere. Cbl62 (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In my opinion, Winterswyk does not meet WP:GNG after looking closely at the references added by Cbl62. The only "significant" coverage he received was from Idaho-based newspaper articles; it is standard for draft-eligible college football players to receive coverage in local papers. Being "written about" in SI, the LA Times, and ESPN would sway me, except they just merely mentioned Winterswyk and focused primarily on the team as a whole. Though I commend Cbl62 for his hard work on the article to make it appear that he undoubtedly passes GNG, I have to disagree. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brief reply. First, Deseret News is from Salt Lake City. It ran a feature story on him. Second, there's nothing in WP:GNG that requires national coverage. National coverage buys automatic inclusion for college athletes under WP:ATH but is not required for GNG. Should we similarly delete the articles on Boise Mayor David H. Bieter and every other Idaho politician because the news coverage of them is principally in Idaho newspapers? Cbl62 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The story was written by The Idaho Statesman apparently and ran in the Deseret News. If national coverage is not required to pass GNG, why make it a point to note that Winterswyk was written about in national newspapers and websites? In response to your query about Bieter, he doesn't have an article solely because he passes GNG, he met other guidelines as well. Winterswyk's only chance at passing this AfD is by passing GNG.

So, it was an important enough story that it was published in major metropolitan dailies in both Idaho and Salt Lakes City. That only enhances the importance. As for national coverage, I mention it because it would go to show possible passage of WP:ATH in addition to WP:GNG. Also, your attempt to downplay the coverage in Sports Illustrated ignores the fact that Winterswyk's picture was on the cover of the magazine when Boise State was announced as the pre-season No. 1 in August 2010. The pre-season cover spot is one of the most prestigious placements in college football (unfortunately, a jinx as well). The coverage in the Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times, Sports Illustrated, and Deseret News actually convinces me that Winterswyk passes the portion of WP:ATH for college athletes who: "Gained national media attention as an individual." Cbl62 (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're really scraping the barrel then. I'm done arguing, my point has been made, and it is unlikely that my stance will have an impact on the outcome of the AfD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine to disagree, but "scraping the barrel," really? I've found over 300 articles that discuss Winterswyk, including over 20 where he is the main subject. That's hardly "scraping the barrel." Cbl62 (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2011 (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.