Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Keels

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. Consensus is that the subject is notable and meets GNG. —Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Keels[edit]

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

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO (claimed recognition isn't notable). While you can find books he wrote, information from media that carried his broadcasts, and of course stuff from the teams he covered, there's almost no independent coverage about him, certainly not enough for WP:GNG. Our systemic bias ensures that media characters in the West get coverage and I warn against WP:ILIKEIT !votes based upon that bias. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Seriously? How is someone who for over 30 years called NCAA Division I football and basketball (OSU and Michigan) including 2 National Championship games 3 Final Fours, MLB games (Reds), NBA games (Pistons), is a 4-time National Sports Media Association Ohio Sportscaster of the Year, Ohio Broadcasters HOFer, and has written a book not notable? This almost looks like a personal thing against Keels. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to your accusation against me on the talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long story short, you want to delete the Keels article to justify your opinion about a similar article. That's getting into WP:Point territory. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to remain civil. Despite your inclusionist beliefs, neither WP:NATH, WP:NRADIO, WP:CREATIVE, nor WP:SPORTSPERSON agree with your claims about notability. There's also a point here about how Wikipedia already includes so many people connected to sport and entertainment. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been back and forth with this one actually. I agree that the subject hardly meets specific notability guidelines listed above, but I think he might pass WP:GNG (borderline). I also think we should not ignore the awards as they can be one of the criterion he actually meets from WP:ANYBIO (although again they are not as "well known and significant" as stated in the guidelines). I have found these sources that were not included in the article: 1, 2. Less Unless (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear pass of WP:GNG from sources provided by EDDY. Subject is widely considered an expert and has been the primary and secondary subject of numerous articles in third party reliable sources, clearly meeting GNG standard.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has enough coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since subject meets the criteria for notability. -The Gnome (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2020 (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.