Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jadon Wagner

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 delete. Missvain (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jadon Wagner[edit]

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

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

I PRODded this article because thought this was a clear-cut case of non-notable college athlete, followed up by his complete lack of any appearance in the CFL due to an injury. Fails WP:NCOLLATH and the coverage is routine and transactional. SportingFlyer T·C 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of which are from either the area he played college ball in, or from Calgary, and not all of them are independent. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said above that the coverage was routine or transactional. Do you really consider coverage like this feature story in a major metropolitan newspaper to be "routine"? Cbl62 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Contextually, yes. He only received that coverage because he's a local player who wanted to play for his local team, even though he never actually took the field for them. It's mere draft coverage. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this. SportingFlyer T·C 11:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a four column feature story focused on him. That is SIGCOV plain and simple and published by a major metropolitan daily. I fear that the dark side has taken hold of you ;) Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have thought further about this one and end up agreeing in part with JoelleJay's reasoned arguments below. For someone who received such extensive coverage in multiple outlets surrounding his draft, signing, and trade, I was surprised I could not find SIGCOV concerning Wagner's college career at BYU (a Division I FBS team). On digging deeper, I found that he tallied only 37 tackles in 28 games as a varsity player at BYU (see here) -- a very unremarkable output for a linebacker. Accordingly, we have an unremarkable college career and a pro career that never happened due to injury. I still believe that WP:ROUTINE is utterly inapplicable to the type of SIGCOV found here. Nor can I fully agree that WP:BLP1E is apposite to an athlete whose playing career spanned four years. However, I do conclude that it is a reasoned exercise of editorial judgment for us to decide that a stand-alone biographical article is not warranted given the complete lack of significant on-field accomplishments at both the college and pro levels. Cbl62 (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A hit or two on the occasion of his initial signing to a team he never actually ended up on the playing field for, in that team's own local media market, is not enough coverage to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass the actual notability tests for professional football players. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number" — GNG does also test the coverage for the context of what the subject is getting covered for, and none of the coverage shown here exists in noteworthy contexts. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, even if he had played enough for NGRIDIRON, NSPORT explicitly requires GNG so he'd have to meet that anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Bearcat, robust local coverage is hardly a solid indicator of notability, particularly when it's confined to proseified draft buzz and game reports. Otherwise we'd have articles on every high school football coach and almost every college athlete. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The slippery slope argument ("we'd have articles on ... almost every college athlete") is way off base. Very very few college athletes (< 0.1%) receive the depth of coverage that has been brought forward here. This is a clear GNG pass with multi-column feature stories like this and this. I think the "delete" voting is simply reflective of an anti-sports bias where some seek to hold athletes to a much higher standard. Cbl62 (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's correctly identifying the fact that two articles talking about the fact he signed with a professional team, in spite of the fact he never appeared for that professional team, or for any professional team, are WP:ROUTINE coverage (especially considering he had a hometown connection to that team) and don't make him a notable athlete. SportingFlyer T·C 00:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a gross misapplication of WP:ROUTINE. Routine coverage includes passing mentions in game coverage or brief reports of injuries, signings. Multi-column feature stories focused on Wagner are the antithesis of "routine" coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's really not. ROUTINE applies to WP:NOTNEWS - people who would receive coverage even just because they get in a local news cycle, not because they're actually notable. It's the same principle we use for people running for office who aren't otherwise notable. Otherwise everyone who received two multi-column feature stories in their local paper would be wiki-notable. I ask once again - how can someone be a notable professional football player if they never even played professional football? SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, your interpretation of WP:ROUTINE to include multi-column feature stories is inconsistent with the plain language of that provision. It has long been applied to exclude passing mentions in game coverage, brief injury announcements, and statistical databases, but never has it been extended to cover multi-column feature stories. Further, the coverage here is not limited to "feel good" stories in a local hometown paper. The coverage instead consists of feature story coverage in major metropolitan newspapers. Cbl62 (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can have routine multi-column feature stories. Further, he signed with Calgary, got a couple stories about how a local player returned to sign for Calgary, and then never played for Calgary. Just because the Calgary paper happens to be from a major city doesn't make this any less routine. SportingFlyer T·C 18:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we just disagree. I'm not aware of any precedent whatsoever for your view that multi-column feature stories in major metropolitan dailies can be disregarded per WP:ROUTINE. Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. and For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Just because "routine" hasn't been "extended" doesn't mean it can't apply here, as Wagner has no enduring notability as he was only locally covered and never actually played. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. SportingFlyer T·C 18:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second relist to establish consensus on if the sourcing meets GNG. Reading debate, currently leaning 'no' but that might change (or become firmer).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep The sources listed by Cbl62 lead me to think that Wagner just barely meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. Otherwise it would be the first time I've seen someone who signed with a CFL team not being regarded as notable enough. Dr. Universe (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think coverage related to his drafting/signing ought to be interpreted as BLP1E. It's the same underlying conceit: an event that generates in-depth coverage of a person for a brief period but isn't notable by itself and doesn't lead to sustained coverage of the person outside of that event isn't enough to warrant a biography. Draft buzz is extensive; while most of the time it correctly predicts future SIGCOV, when a signing quietly falls through like this did we should take into consideration why we have BLP1E. Wagner has remained a low-profile individual for 9 years, coverage was exclusive to his drafting/signing, and the coverage was entirely local-interest. JoelleJay (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete coverage of him joining a regional football team, and him playing in a regional division for that football team is just routine coverage. Therefore it fails WP:GNG. It also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he didn't play in a national match according to his article. With the amount of time between the last addition I don't think that's going to change in the future. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is quite the discussion above about WP:ROUTINE, but I'd like to point out that the guideline applies to events and not people -- this is a person, so the ROUTINE argument doesn't really have any impact.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2021 (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/Jadon_Wagner&oldid=1026733633"