Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kip Smith (2nd nomination)

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. bd2412 T 02:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kip Smith

[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)

Non-notable athlete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bio is a stub, and the article lacks any third-party sourcing to establish notability.TH1980 (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prior AfD closed as a unanimous keep per WP:GNG. He was the top-rated kicking prospect in the US in 2010 and played for two top level NCAA programs (UCLA and Oklahoma State). A quick search in 2015 turned up significant coverage in mainstream media outlets, including: (1) this from The Reporter (same also also published here), (2) this from the Los Angeles Times, (3) this from the Los Angeles Times, (4) this, (5) this, (6) this, and (7) this from the Tulsa World, (8) this from America Sport News, (9) this from The Oklahoman, (10) this from The Orange County Register and (11) this from the Los Angeles Daily News. Some of the sources are now deadlinks, but this was and remains sufficient coverage to pass the GNG bar. (Unfortunately, nobody has bothered to improve the article with information from these sources in the 3-1/2 years since the last AfD.) Cbl62 (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability has already been achieved and cannot be lost. I see no argument to support the idea that the first AFD was incorrect or should be overturned. Plus (at least according to the article and the Field goal article) his high school field goal of 67 yards ties him for the second-longest high school field goal in history. That's significant and speaks to WP:IMPACT. I grant that should be verified... but let's verify it rather than delete the article without checking.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable college football player - the articles above are all routine coverage of a local college football team or routine transactional. I have no idea why this was added to the Politics AfD thread? SportingFlyer T·C 22:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Feature articles are not "routine" by any stretch. See both WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources shown above, there are a total of two feature stories, the Reporter article (republished twice, and both of those republishes were linked) and the Tulsa World "Kip Smith needed a second chance." One of those two articles is about the player trying out for an NFL team, published during what looks like the deep offseason, and the other is a story on him intended for a local media market. If a player definitively fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH, I firmly believe they need more than a "were written about trying to make the NFL" story to be notable, since that is as close to a "routine" feature article as you'll find. The other articles are blurbs/transactional from local area newspapers. Case in point, if a player fails WP:NCOLLATH in a different sport and never played professionally, say baseball, they wouldn't likely have an article even if they were substantively written about in their local press over a number of years, unless of course they passed WP:GNG in some other area. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant, non-routine coverage cited above from seven separate reliable sources. This is more than enough to pass GNG. And your comparison of Division I FBS college football to amateur baseball reflects profound misunderstanding of the major role of big-time college football in the United States. Cbl62 (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely disagree with you. The majority of what you've linked is routine local sports coverage. It doesn't matter the sport, players can get written about and not be notable. This appears to be one of those instances. SportingFlyer T·C 03:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I know at this point we're all probably just at the agree-to-disagree point, but I think it's a bit of an oxymoron to use the phrase "'routine' feature article". My understanding of the WP:ROUTINE policy is that box scores and games that happen on a consistent basis are a good example of routine events. A player attempting to make the NFL--whereupon we'd call them inherently notable--is not routine; it's a subset of a subset of a subset of humans in a process that has a ton of eyeballs on it. The type of article written about that group of prospects may be "routine" insofar as they often draw upon similar stats and college accomplishments, but I don't think it is routine in the same way that other "run-of-the-mill events" are (especially when compared to the other examples on WP:N(E)). Nole (chat·edits) 15:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nolelover: There's a certain type of article written by journalists who tend to cover the NFL team during the deep offseason about players who are on trial with the NFL team, even if they don't have much of a chance of making the team at all. They're like clockwork. I have a lot of trouble claiming an athlete "passes WP:GNG" for a sport if they never play a single down of professional football, and they're not otherwise notable as a collegiate player, especially when the coverage is limited to their local/collegiate market of trying to make the NFL team. SportingFlyer T·C 18:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I disagree with SportingFlyer that the sources Cbl found are routine. They tend to be relatively significant, passing GNG, and I also found a source for the high school record. Nole (chat·edits) 14:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs an ambitious editor because WP:NEXIST. The subject notable for his high school record setting 67 yard field goal. He passes GNG: see non-trivial secondary source here and here and LAtimes story here and Foxsports a subject has to pass WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG not both. This subject easily passes GNG Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 20:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, per WP:YOUNGATH, he can't be notable for his high school field goal, and two of the sources you link to are clearly routine. SportingFlyer T·C 20:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:SIGCOV There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. The test to see if the sources are proper: they need to be "Reliable", secondary and independent. The notability guidelines for WP:YOUNGATH and WP:NCOLLATH are no matter since non-trivial coverage exists for this person to pass GNG. I listed four sources and two of them are non-trivial. I will work on improving the article when I have time. WP:NEXIST Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 21:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's research and sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject meets WP:GNG. Just because the article is a stub doesn't mean that it is not notable. Masum Reza^📞 00:38, 27 June 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.