Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damarea Crockett

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 keep. Discussions of the merits of WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH with reference to this AFD are welcome to continue on their respective talkpages. Yunshui 雲水 08:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damarea Crockett

[edit]

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

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

As of right now, doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH nor WP:NGRIDIRON. Case of WP:TOOSOON, perhaps. Was deprodded without improvement with the rationale, "he holds multiple mizzou records and will soon be selected in the upcoming nfl draft". Neither of which is grounds for notability. Onel5969 TT me 15:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 15:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU (Talk) 16:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU (Talk) 16:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCOLLATH does not supersede WP:GNG. It is well established that passing GNG is enough even where NCOLLATH is not satisfied. GNG contains no prohibition on the type of regional coverage presented here. Indeed, even local coverage suffices if the sources are multiple, reliable, and independent, and the coverage is significant. Cbl62 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Idaho Statesman is a blurb about recruiting, the player is from Arkansas, and the school he played at is halfway between Kansas City and St. Louis and is covered by both of their media markets. He didn't get any press outside of either his hometown or the two media markets that cover his team, which hardly qualifies as national coverage required by WP:NCOLLATH. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCOLLATH is inclusive and not exclusive -- there is more than one path to notability, and the coverage is more than enough to surpass the general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer:: There is no mandate for "national coverage". You continue to willfully ignore the plain language of NSPORTS (of which NCOLLATH is a part) which expressly states: "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 . . .). Cbl62 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCOLLATH #3 requires "national media attention," which clearly in my mind carves out an exception to the WP:GNG for amateur university athletes, since many athletes may pass WP:GNG based on either local coverage or routine coverage (you can probably find a blurb on every single college football player's chosen school choice) but are not actually notable athletes. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply wrong and whatever you think "in my mind" is irrelevant. I participated in the discussion on the adoption of NSPORTS. It was adopted on the clear premise that the guidelines were inclusive only and that any athlete would remain eligible for inclusion under WP:GNG regardless of whether or not NSPORTS was satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why even have prong #3, if the standard for inclusion is routine local amateur sports journalism? SportingFlyer T·C 20:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) these papers are considered regional or national coverage, not local. 2) Feature articles are not "routine" sports scores and statistics. 3) WP:NCOLLATH states clearly at the top of the guideline: "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline."--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is arguing that "routine local" coverage suffices under WP:GNG. WP:ROUTINE bars things like statistical summaries and passing mentions in game coverage. Feature articles focused on a player are the antithesis of routine coverage. Only a tiny percentage of college athletes receive such feature story coverage in major metropolitan dailies (in this case, in at least three major metropolitan areas [St. Louis, Kansas City, Little Rock] as well as numerous smaller cities). Cbl62 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer continues to advocate a drastic change to GNG despite the fact that precisely such a change was expressly rejected by the community when recently presented here: Wikipedia talk:Notability#Local sources, again. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not advocating the creation of articles based on isolated reports in a single small-town paper, but SportingFlyer's position would reject significant coverage from major metropolitan dailies such as The Kansas City Star and St. Louis Post-Dispatch simply because the source is located "too close" (in one case 125 to the west and in the other a similar distance to the east) to the school where Crockett played football as the lead running back and 1,000-yard-rusher for a Power Five Conference (SEC) team. This view is insupportable (and even dangerous) IMO. We can and should discount the student newspaper (in this case The Maneater) as counting toward GNG. Moreover, if the coverage were solely limited to the Columbia Daily Tribune, we'd have an issue under the "multiple" sources requirement. But here, the coverage is far more widespread and satisfies GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, NCOLLATH is inclusive only. Passage of GNG is sufficient. Cbl62 (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of which pass WP:NCOLLATH. Why even have a strict SNG if the standard is, "his local papers wrote a feature story on him?" Anyways, I disagree strongly with the keep arguments, but continuing to argue here won't lead anywhere, so I'm going to unwatch this one and let others come to their own conclusion. SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per Cbl62's sources. The idea that feature articles in major metropolitan dailies like the ones in St. Louis and Kansas City are somehow "local coverage" is the kind of lunacy we really shouldn't have to be wasting our time addressing over and over again here. As a matter of fact, there's nothing in Wikipedia's general notability guideline prohibiting the use of so-called "local coverage" to begin with, so that whole argument is doubly wrong from the get-go. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cbl, Sporting seems to not understand the premise that WP:GNG supercedes NCOLLATH.--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Good info, but requires more work.Mgbo120 (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Comment). It's clear that a majority of folks support not deleting Damarea Crockett. I'm leaving this as a general comment after looking through the above discussion, where the point of disagreement looks to be what is "significant". IMO, the attributes of WP:NCOLLATH make sense, and someone with "national media attention" (emphasis added by me) should appear often in national sources such as the the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and The Boston Globe. A rather high bar, with Jalen Hurts being an example of someone with such coverage. In general, each starting QB/RB/WR on a team in a Power Five conference appears in standard media reporting during their collegiate playing days, which feels like a rather low bar. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response relying on having coverage from only three specific newspapers to meet the threshold of notability is ridiculous. It also goes against the widely accepted WP:GNG. However, if you want to challenge and re-write that guideline, the place to do it is there and not here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"such as". Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
College football is one of the top four team sports in the USA (on par with NBA, NFL, and MLB, in terms of revenue, attendance, press coverage, fan base, and any other measure), and notability simply cannot and should not be limited to top 25 players like a Jalen Hurts. Some statistics illustrate just how high the bar has already been set. Even ignoring Division II, Division III and NAIA, there are approximately 27,000 players in Division I college football each year (267 teams x 100 players per roster). Having followed college football AfDs carefully for the past 10 years, the current GNG standard effectively precludes roughly 98% of those players from having articles. Only the top 2% get the type of significant coverage that puts them above the GNG bar. The ones who do receive such coverage are generally the skill players (starting QBs, RBs, WRs, DBs), with the coverage skewed even at those positions to players on Power 5 Conference teams. IMO the GNG system we currently have in place is effective and appropriate in limiting our coverage to sufficiently notable players. Cbl62 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That insight helps, thanks. If the observed steady-state behavior is that there is a high bar, that's reassuring. What constitutes "significant" could still be a weakness if someone wanted to manufacture justification for each player on their favorite college team, but if in practice folks are behaving in good faith, leaving well-enough alone is reasonable (“There are no rules until they are broken”). Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I was skeptical about WP:GNG when we had that discussion (was it really 10 years ago? wow!) But the results have proven to be widely accepted and well-grounded. The simple guideline seems to be the best guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2019 (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/Damarea_Crockett&oldid=879928558"