Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pooka Williams

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 delete. Tone 10:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pooka Williams

[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 WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG. Sources available are all routine for a D1 recruit and are not the kind of significant coverage that would suggest notability for a college athlete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure there are a lot of references in the "news" search above that come from obvious fan sites, but there's also news sources too: Washington Post, Fox Sports, Columbia Daily Tribune, Kansas City Star, KATC-Lafayette News, Great Bend Tribune, Chicago Tribune, The Detroit News, and a whole lot more. Some of those are big, some of those are small, and there's a lot of blog activity--exactly the kind of coverage we expect for notable college athletes. Passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd add to this: "True freshman Pooka Williams is Pro Football Focus' highest-graded running back in the nation through three weeks...:" Kansas City Star and "Yet finally, when a running back named “Pooka” who was in the fourth grade when the streak began in 2009 rushes for 125 yards and 8.9 per carry, well . . ." printed up in the Washington Post and "A week after not playing in a home loss to FCS Nicholls, touted Jayhawks freshman running back Pooka Williams rushed for 125 yards and two touchdowns on just 14 carries against Central Michigan." at Yahoo Sports and was also picked up by the Los Angeles Times. Exactly how does this not pass WP:GNG?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I also need to mention that both WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GRIDIRON are inclusionary and not exclusionary, meaning that if the subject achieves notability through another means (such as WP:GNG) then notability is achieved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only one of those stories is significant coverage in a non-routine article (the Columbia Daily Tribune.) Many college players will get written about in routine game recaps, but that does not convey notability per WP:ROUTINE (participation in a routine event) - that's why WP:NCOLLATH/WP:NGRIDIRON exists at all instead of just WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 03:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCOLLATH, WP:GRIDIRON. SportingFlyer talk 05:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most college football players are not notable, no exception here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON. Routine sports coverage, local and non-independent coverage, and passing mentions do not combine to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:GNG because it lacks WP:SIGCOV that demonstrates that this individual is notable. Collage football players are not automaticly notable just because they are a step above high school level players. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2018 (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.