Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dakota Simms

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. m.o.p 18:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Simms[edit]

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

Procedural: Declined speedy due to some news coverage of a 9-year old basketball prodigy. Certainly not enough to meet WP:ATHLETE and may also fall foul of WP:NOT#NEWS, but bringing here for discussion. Black Kite 22:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, as the creator. Thank you, nominator, for listing in order to get community view and not speedy deleting, no matter the outcome. I will not make the same mistake I made defending my first article and passionately bludgeoning every commenter. I will say this, though;Article meets GNG. The asserted notability is in the fact that a 9 year old kid has such skills in basketball that professional NBA players sing ballads on him and CNN finds it appropriate to do a big story on the kid. Coincidentaly, the CNN article constitutes significant coverage. Other sources constitute additional RS that are all verifiable, and I only did a quick skim search. If one takes the delete route, please check sources first, and if still delete inclined, please present to me how article does not meet WP:GNG and/or WP:BLP. Thanks. Turqoise127 (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cf. WP:NOT#NEWS. Good for the kid, but really he's not done anything yet except generate a few news reports. Jnthn0898 (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails ATHLETE, fails under NOT NEWS, and fails the GNG. Well done to the kid for doing something, but until he plays at college level then he is not notable. Many promising young athlete tear a muscle when they hit puberty and never play in the big leagues, so wait until he actually does something more than fill the last five miuntes of a slow news day bulletin. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the references I can find seem to be based on the CNN report. One news coverage does not make someone notable. As far as I can tell he does not meet any notability guideline. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If all references seem to mirror the CNN report (I believed there were other reputable sources on this) per GB gan, and there are a few more delete votes, I concede to snowball. Turqoise127 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails NOT NEWS & ATHLETE. Welcome back if he does get signed in the future. Skier Dude (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and Very Weak Delete The problem here for me, is that the coverage in CNN is significant, focused on the subject primarily, and explicitly touts him as a prodigy of great prospects. To quote WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." A full length CNN profile qualifies on all those counts. This is not a news article about a passing event in the full spirit of WP:NOT#NEWS, even if it happens to be on a news site. That said, this is the only significant piece of coverage he has so far, and I don't believe he has demonstrated any enduring historical notability in the colloquial, rather than strict criteria-based, sense of the term. So, letter of the guideline says he passes, but so far there's not quite enough buzz for me to let it through. Ray^Talk 23:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment Ray. That is what I meant when I stated above at the end of my vote "If one takes the delete route, please check sources first, and if still delete inclined, please present to me how article does not meet WP:GNG and/or WP:BLP" Because the kid meets policy exactly as you described. The voters above are quoting WP:NotNews and WP:Athlete which is totally wrong and does not apply. Is this troubling?Turqoise127 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why it bothers you. The thing is, what we consider when talking about notability really is enduring historical notability, since a good encyclopedia only covers those topics (yes, I'm very aware we fall short in a lot of places). Is Dakota Simms a 15-minutes wonder created by a bored CNN producer and a good publicist? Or will he go on to do great things, bring joy and admiration to thousands if not millions, etc. Right now, there's not sufficient indication of the latter, but there could be - that, for me, is what our notability criteria are getting at. That's also why I support userfication so that you can bring it out if/when the article's a more clear keeper. Ray^Talk 16:46, 18 November 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.