Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Reed

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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Reed[edit]

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

Reed doesn't meet notability guidelines for college athletes as he's never won any national college football awards or set any NCAA Division I records but has set records at San Jose State, according to his official biography. Furthermore, Reed lacks national media coverage for his athletic career but has had local media coverage [1] [2] [3] [4] Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This probably applies to a larger group of articles as well: If a subject does not meet any of the notability guidelines, but appears to pass WP:GNG, are they still notable? As a starting quarterback for a Division I FBS program, it is extremely rare if that player does not meet GNG. However, being a starting quarterback is not an automatic inclusion criteria. To put it simply, if a subject is truly notable, they will meet GNG and at least one other notability guideline. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. This has been discussed extensively elsewhere, and the consensus has been that if a person passes "GNG," that's good enough. For this reason, a college player who never plays pro ball can still be the subject of an article. And you are correct, a starting QB at a Division I FBS program will most likely pass GNG. Whether rightly or wrongly, starting QBs get far more press coverage than any other position player. Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take your word that there is a consensus for this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually there is no consensus. It is split about 50/50. Cbl62 argues in favor and I have been on the other side. A story today in my local paper talked about a junior high school QB and his experience at some camp. The player has verbally committed to a local University. Another article last week talked about a freshman wide receiver that red shirted last year. So, using CB162 criteria, every starter for the University I'm a fan of is notable and even the major recruits are too. But, as there is no consensus, tie goes to the runner. Bgwhite (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with that. Only a small percentage of college football players get enough non-trivial coverage in mainstream media outlets to pass GNG. For example, 99% of college linemen don't get the type of coverage to satisfy GNG. Starting QBs on Division I FBS teams do generally get a lot of media coverage, and this is the case with Reed. But even starting QBs sometimes don't garner enough non-trivial coverage. For an example of a college QB who does not satisfy WP:GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Holland. Cbl62 (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where have these discussions taken place? Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous AfDs on sports people. Usually college football and basketball players.Bgwhite (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Aponavicius, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Cox (American football), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jemalle Cornelius, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scooter Berry (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obi Egekeze. Also, the sports guideline begins with the following statement: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." Thus, the policy itself makes clear that passing GNG is enough even if the sports standard is not met. Cbl62 (talk) 06:37, 13 July 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources that Cbl62 has presented above which clearly demonstrate that Reed passes the general notability guideline. The SNGs, of which WP:NSPORTS is one, are supplementary guidelines and should generally be used as indicators for whether the subject will meet the GNG. While it is fine to disagree about whether the subject meets GNG, it is ridiculous to argue that someone meets GNG but fails NSPORTS and should therefore be deleted when the lead of NSPORTS contains "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson ... will meet the general notability guideline" and "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." Jenks24 (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:NSPORT for college athletes, and never played at highest level professionally. Source from The Daily Californian is a school newspaper and not an independent source as required by WP:GNG. WP:GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", but the sources are from MediaNews Group which syndicate each others articles (San Jose Mercury News, Oakland Tribune, Las Cruces Sun-News). A lot of the sources listed were available subscription only, so cited results from WP:GOOGLEHITS does not weed out articles that might be WP:ROUTINE coverage even though the limited headline and excerpt seems promising. I personally can't verify it. This player generated some news because he decided to transfer schools within the Bay Area and happens to be a quarterback who played against Nebraska, so "keep" proponents can have a field day citing sources from the state of Nebraska. But WP is WP:NOTNEWS. I'm at a loss as to what would ever be "interesting or notable" in even the most polished lead section for this article. Perhaps someone can provide some talking points to change my mind on why this person should not be considered WP:Run-of-the-mill and is deserving of an article. —Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few points in response:
(1) Common ownership of media outlets does not make them the same source. The Media News Group owns dozens of newspapers across the country, but that doesn't make all of those newspapers one source. Likewise, the New Mexico newspaper appears to be owned by Gannett, which also owns dozens of media outlets. They are still separate sources under WP:GNG. If your position were accepted, coverage in The Wall Street Journal, The Times (London), The New York Post, Sky TV, and Fox News Channel would not satisfy GNG because these outlets are all owned by News Corporation. That's never been the interpretation.
(2) You acknowledge that much of the coverage "seems promising" based on the headlines, but note that you can't weed out coverage that "might be" WP:ROUTINE because they are subscription sources. That's not a valid basis for concluding that the sources are routine. Indeed, you acknowledge that you don't know. In cases of uncertainty, the default should be to "Keep" not "Delete."
(3) Your reliance on WP:NOTNEWS is not well taken. This applies to whether or not a one-time news story should have a Wikipedia article. In this case, we have an athlete who has received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources for an extended time. Newspaper stories are an established and valid way of establishing a person's notability.
(4) You say that you can't image what would be "interesting or notable" about this person. That's applying a subjective standard. What's interesting to me might not be interesting to you and vice versa. But that's not the test. We have an objective way of measuring notability from non-trivial coverage in mainstream media outlets, and Reed passes that test. Cbl62 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re {1)Common ownership: Your personal interpretation aside, this is taken verbatim from GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The sharing of content is clearly evident in reading their newspapers and seeing the same writes, and is clearly articulated in their mission statement of "integrating our content for dissemination across all available distribution platforms in our markets, beginning with the local newspaper".
re: (2) Availability of sources: While articles can be developed in user page to avoid scrutiny of notability while sources are still being found, the article incubator is the other option when "the material did not meet our inclusion criteria, there was justifiable reason to believe the material/article could be made to meet the inclusion criteria given enough time." These articles should not be in the mainspace.
re: (3) Not news: WP:NRVE says "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest". "short-term interest" was liked to WP:NOTNEWS. Reed's main coverage is for two isolated events of short-term interest: transferring schools and famous in Nebraska for being a quarterback on an opponents teams.
re: (4) Subjective: WP:GNG clearly allows this: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." There are also those who advocate WP:COMMONSENSE which is of source subject to consensus and can only reached by discussing what each of us individually subjectively consider notable. —Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: After closing there was an inquiry on my talk page, and I took the close to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_July_25#Kyle_Reed. I'm satisfied that there is clear consensus there, so I'm re-opening and re-listing. Gusto!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for relisting. In my opinion, the article is not well-written currently, and I'll do some work on improving it over the next couple days, but I think article should be kept for at least three reasons:
(1) Reed has been the subject of dozens of articles written about him (i.e., he was the subject of the coverage rather than it being passing references in game coverage) in multiple major newspapers like the San Jose Mercury News (the 5th largest U.S. newspaper), San Francisco Chronicle (23rd largest U.S. newspaper), Oakland Tribune, as well as newspapers in New Mexico and Nebraska. This seems like more than plenty to meet WP:GNG. Passing reference in game coverage is routine, but this guy has multiple stories in newspapers across the country written about him in particular. That's not routine. I edit regularly on college football, and the percentage of college football players who receive this depth and breadth of coverage is extremely small -- less than 1%.
(2) Although passing WP:GNG suffices, he likely passes WP:NSPORTS as well. WP:NSPORTS says: "College athletes ... are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include ... players who ... Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Here, Reed has been the subject of such non-trivial media coverage, including coverage on a national basis. It's anything but routine for an athlete from San Jose to receive feature coverage in newspapers as far away as New Mexico and Nebraska.
(3) Starting quarterbacks for Division I FBS (the highest level of college football) almost always pass WP:GNG. QBs are team leaders, and QBs on FBS teams receive a lot of media attention. It's for that reason that the College Football Project allows templates for FBS team QBs. Such templates are not permitted for any other position in college football. This is because a consensus has developed at the College Football Project that starting QBs on FBS teams are almost always notable. That's no reason to panic and think there's a move to saying every college football player is notable. Far from it. There are 25 positions on a college football team and 3 players at each position, meaning 1 starting quarterback on a team of about 75 players. Further, only a small percentage of college teams compete in the highest FBS level. So we're talking about a tiny percentage (actually a fraction of 1% of college football players) who are starting QBs for FBS teams. Cbl62 (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re (1): Newspapers under MediaNews umbrella are considered one source per GNG (per discussion above)
re (2): New Mexico and Nebraska coverage is routine when you consider it's only pregame coverage about opposing team's run-of-the-mill quarterback before 2008 games against opponents Nebraska (Spetember 6) and New Mexico (October 18). These dates coincide with the "national" coverage alluded to.
re (3): Agree with Cbl62 that Div I quarterback "almost always" pass WP:GNG, but that is a red herring. This cannot sway discussion on Reed, who must be discussed and qualify on his own merits. There is no previous consensus in WP:NSPORTS to automatically presume notability for all Div I quarterbacks. —Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NSPORT and sources listed are WP:ROUTINE coverage about him transferring from Cal and routine game articles. Bgwhite (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete for meeting neither WP:NSPORT nor WP:GNG. I agree with others that the coverage is routine. Even if consensus were to be undecided if the coverage is significant, common sense needs to prevail and guidelines should not be merely followed if it does not improve Wikipedia. Instead of blindly counting the number of significant sources, look at what the sources say. They say he is only famous for transferring schools and little else, which is not notable. Norespectasip (talk) 18:09, 1 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kyle_Reed&oldid=1140523525"