Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tre' Newton
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. Cirt (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tre' Newton[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Tre' Newton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Fails WP:ATHLETE. No reliable sources provided to support notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete College athletes, even those playing at Division 1-A (I refuse to use the "FBS" crap), are not automatically notable. There will be coverage, especially as Texas prepares for the title game. But Wikipedia is not a news source. DarkAudit (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep was the SUBJECT of significant articles in the Austin American-Statesman, Dallas Morning News, and ESPN -Drdisque (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because he has been in many articles even especially featured in Sports Illustrated, he gets plenty of media coverage, and is significant.--Jumpman Jordan (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Easily meets WP:ATHLETE. --bender235 (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to explain how? The coverage he is receiving in the here and now is typical for any top level college program. Much of that can be discounted because Wikipedia is not a news source. Otherwise he does not meet the standards for college players, at least not yet. No All-America honors or postseason awards. That is the usual standard expected of a college player. Starting running back for Big State U. does not in and of itself make one notable. DarkAudit (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to not understand WP:NOTNEWS. It means that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news reports. However, on the contrary, when a person has been the subject of numerous articles in large publications it supports the fact that the subject is notable and passes WP:BIO. You seem to be claiming that a subject being covered by news reports automatically disqualifies him from notability because of NOTNEWS. -Drdisque (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand it fine. We are in the middle of a college football season, and naturally there will be an uptick in the amount of coverage of players and teams. It is very similar to active political campaigns, where the coverage is much more intense leading up to the election. The guidelines at WP:CFBPLAYER is not clear on active players, but the amount of coverage today, in the middle of the season may overstate the notability simply because Texas is headed for the BCS championship game. DarkAudit (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability doesn't expire. If he's notable now based on media coverege, he's notable. End of story. -Drdisque (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just the problem. He's getting more coverage now because a) he's the starting running back for Texas, and b) Texas is in the BCS title game. The amount of coverage is way out of proportion to the actual ntability for just those reasons. You plug anyone into that same spot and they will generate just as much coverage, especially in the Texas newspapers and on ESPN. You have to look past the weekly game summaries and previews of upcoming games. There's a lot of chaff out there that people will look at and declare "coverage". What has he done himself that makes him stand out more than the next "starting tailback at the University of Texas"? DarkAudit (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not up to you to decide what's proportional. It's up to society and the media. The media and society have decided that this guy is interesting and notable and we should abide by that. Go look at the articles I posted. He is the subject of those articles. They aren't "game summaries or previews". -Drdisque (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And those articles are typical of the coverage players for the big schools get during the season. The ESPN article is especially trivial, because although Newton could be said to be the subject, the real story is who will start at RB for the following game. That is not encyclopedic coverage, that is just this week's news. Same really for the Austin story. It's news coverage about how he did that past Saturday. I will definitely accept that Dallas article. More of that and less game reports is what is needed. DarkAudit (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tre Newton has been covered by the media since his junior year in high school (here's a 2006 Dallas Morning News article, for example), because he played at Southlake Carroll (3x state champion 2004-06), because Carroll faced Miami Northwestern in that epic battle in 2007, because he's Nate Newton's son, etc. etc. etc. He is notable. --bender235 (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And absolutely none of that matters. High school athletes are inherently non-notable, and being the son of a famous athlete means even less. DarkAudit (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "High school athletes are inherently non-notable". You're not up to date. Check this discussion on the proposed deletion of Arthur Brown, then at Wichita East High School. Also, take a look at Harrison Barnes, Seantrel Henderson, Bryce Harper, Kirani James, Cam Fowler, and so on. All notable athletes, despite their age. --bender235 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And absolutely none of that matters. High school athletes are inherently non-notable, and being the son of a famous athlete means even less. DarkAudit (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tre Newton has been covered by the media since his junior year in high school (here's a 2006 Dallas Morning News article, for example), because he played at Southlake Carroll (3x state champion 2004-06), because Carroll faced Miami Northwestern in that epic battle in 2007, because he's Nate Newton's son, etc. etc. etc. He is notable. --bender235 (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And those articles are typical of the coverage players for the big schools get during the season. The ESPN article is especially trivial, because although Newton could be said to be the subject, the real story is who will start at RB for the following game. That is not encyclopedic coverage, that is just this week's news. Same really for the Austin story. It's news coverage about how he did that past Saturday. I will definitely accept that Dallas article. More of that and less game reports is what is needed. DarkAudit (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not up to you to decide what's proportional. It's up to society and the media. The media and society have decided that this guy is interesting and notable and we should abide by that. Go look at the articles I posted. He is the subject of those articles. They aren't "game summaries or previews". -Drdisque (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just the problem. He's getting more coverage now because a) he's the starting running back for Texas, and b) Texas is in the BCS title game. The amount of coverage is way out of proportion to the actual ntability for just those reasons. You plug anyone into that same spot and they will generate just as much coverage, especially in the Texas newspapers and on ESPN. You have to look past the weekly game summaries and previews of upcoming games. There's a lot of chaff out there that people will look at and declare "coverage". What has he done himself that makes him stand out more than the next "starting tailback at the University of Texas"? DarkAudit (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability doesn't expire. If he's notable now based on media coverege, he's notable. End of story. -Drdisque (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand it fine. We are in the middle of a college football season, and naturally there will be an uptick in the amount of coverage of players and teams. It is very similar to active political campaigns, where the coverage is much more intense leading up to the election. The guidelines at WP:CFBPLAYER is not clear on active players, but the amount of coverage today, in the middle of the season may overstate the notability simply because Texas is headed for the BCS championship game. DarkAudit (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to not understand WP:NOTNEWS. It means that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news reports. However, on the contrary, when a person has been the subject of numerous articles in large publications it supports the fact that the subject is notable and passes WP:BIO. You seem to be claiming that a subject being covered by news reports automatically disqualifies him from notability because of NOTNEWS. -Drdisque (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2009 (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.