Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Occeus

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. Sandstein 11:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Occeus[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)

Does not meet the requirements of the notability guideline for basketball players. The only sources I can find besides his college-days bio (not really a third-party source) are stats websites and very short notes about his career. We don't have the sufficient significant coverage required by the general notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per [1] [2] [3][4][5] [6] [7] [8] ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He meets none of the notability criteria for basketball players. The references given above and those in the article, while numerous, do not rise to the level of meeting WP:GNG. Most of them are routine sports reporting about games and appear in the local press (whether it's for high school, college, or the G-League) or from non-independent sources (like his college). Reports of transactions also are generally considered to be typical reporting and do not generally confer notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources that cover Occeus in reasonable depth, whether a reported transfer or his return from injury, are not what I would consider routine. Records of signings might be routine, but are not if they explain his previous career. Here is another source from his pro career: [9] ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like routine reporting of a game combined with an announcement of the league shutting down. Papaursa (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources presented qualify for GNG for different reasons. Several are local sources from his high school days which don't count because of WP:NYOUNGATH. The CBS Sports is a two sentence transactional blurb. The others are blogs or non-independent sources from his college career and the remainder are game reports from his minor league basketball career. There's no evidence here he's been covered significantly by any reliable, independent secondary sources that aren't local high school articles. SportingFlyer T·C 13:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there is no guideline called WP:NYOUNGATH, nor is there the precedent that youth sports coverage automatically counts less than usual GNG stuff. This is an argument you've used before and I don't think it works. Second, this this and this cover him in reasonable detail from his college days and are independent sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, I meant WP:YOUNGATH, which specifically disqualifies some of the coverage here. The Boston Herald is a game report, which are specifically considered WP:ROUTINE by WP:SPORTBASIC. The Local Headline News article looks like a neighbourhood paper. The WRBB Sports looks like a student radio station, so not independent. Still not close to GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good improvements and new sources added in good faith to rescue the article, which does enough for me.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We generally assume editors are working in good faith (see WP:AGF). That doesn't mean the sources meet WP:GNG or that the article can't be deleted. Papaursa (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase then - the improvements add reliable secondary sources to support the new material added. I have no issue with notability here either.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources specifically do you think are reliable, secondary, and significant? SportingFlyer T·C 15:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6, 7, and 8 in particular clear all of those bars for me, but even the short mentions on CBSSports count as reliable in my book. Maybe more to the point, this to me is a case where there are sources to support the information - and as is often the case, notability is open to interpretation. I think the article provides interesting knowledge, which I enjoyed reading.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I've identified them correctly, one is a game report, which is specifically excluded by WP:SPORTBASIC. The short mentions on CBSSports are also transactional and considered routine - they're two sentences, that's not WP:SIGCOV at all. Finally, the student newspaper isn't independent enough of the subject. I think those are the sources you've mentioned, and none of them pass WP:GNG. Whether you enjoyed the article has no bearing on its notability. SportingFlyer T·C 16:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The eighth source devotes several paragraphs to Occeus. Game reports don't count if it's just "Occeus scores 12 points and grabs 4 rebounds", but I'd consider that one significant. As I've mentioned, there are other sources that cover Occeus in detail as well. We do not need to discount his high school years, as GNG supersedes any notability guidelines. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've gone through this before, but WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes match reports, and WP:YOUNGATH specifically excludes routine high school sports coverage... and those exclusions clarify which sources are WP:GNG-qualifying sources. Your logic doesn't make sense, because it basically says "if a source exists, it counts towards GNG, even when other guidelines say those sources don't count towards GNG." SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as I've explained before, Occeus is not a high school athlete, he is a professional basketball player. YOUNGATH applies to players while they are in high school, but is not a disqualification of sources from a person's high school period. Reasonable minds may differ as to what is considered "significant", but you are totally misreading the policy. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:44, 2 December 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.