Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Scales (American football)
Source: 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Scales (American football)
- Patrick Scales (American football) (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)
This article fails WP:Athlete. By all accounts, he has had an unremarkable college career, failing to meet WP:NCOLLATH and fails all criteria set forth by WP:NGRIDIRON. The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail to meet the criteria noted above for Patrick Scales. This batch comes as a result from a discussion at ANI in regards to a series of questionable articles that I have listed on my talk page:
- Roosevelt Holliday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Antavious Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep wilson He played extensively at Marshall and has significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. No opinion on the other two at this time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. None of them won a national award in college nor (yet) played a snap in the NFL. I don't watch a lot of Marshall football so I can't comment on Paul's assertion that Wilson received plenty of coverage; all I can say is that the article doesn't reflect it and makes no assertion of notability. EDIT: just to expand on this, none of the articles asserts notability beyond playing college football, which isn't enough. None explains why this person might pass the GNG. Mackensen (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:RTS if you cannot comment on the coverage, you probably shouldn't comment at all. WP:N is based on the coverage of the subject of the article, not how well the article is written in its current state.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or you could demonstrate that coverage. I did do a cursory Google search and I didn't find much, and I don't really remember hearing about him (I don't see many Marshall games, but I do watch more college football than most people). Why is Wilson noteworthy? I don't think it's fair for you to ask me, or anyone else, to just take your word for it. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay How's this for starters? I don't think you did a google search as you claimed. This is just google news and it's restricted to +"Antavious Wilson" +Marshall and we're looking at hundreds of articles. Local news, regional newspapers, TV, Illinois, Memphis, ESPN. Significant wide coverage in reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you should reconsider calling another editor a liar in a deletion debate, unless you think that somehow benefits your case. I don't recall having interacted with you previously and I don't know under what basis you're making that assertion. Of course there are hits for Wilson in Google News. It's very difficult for that to otherwise be the case when all Division I football games are covered nationally. I would also expect skill position players to receive more coverage than, say, a lineman. However, much of this coverage is routine. If there is "significant" coverage that implies that he did something noteworthy or stood out in some way, yet not enough to justify being drafted by an NFL team. Our current article is unhelpful, listing his touchdowns and receptions each year without context. College football players aren't automatically notable. Has he won any awards, besides being named to the C-USA All-Freshman team? That's probably not enough; it implies potential but not importance. Mackensen (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments The basis is quite simple, and anyone can repeat the results as outlined above. I suppose it's possible that the editor did the google search incorrectly and mis-spelled the search or something like that. My search was restricted to Google News and further restricted to the text strings "Antavious Wilson" and "Marshall", yet this restrictive search produces hundreds of articles and the other editor claims to searching all of google and "didn't find much" -- Couple that with the editor's admitted failure to do the research up front and I believe what we have here is someone who should not be commenting in AFD until they learn more about the process. --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- More comments "I've never heard of him" is not a reason to delete. --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still more comments granted that playing college football is not automatic notability, but you should also understand that there are many paths to notability. It's possible for a player to never win any awards yet still achieve notability. The general notability guideline is a good place to start.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And finally... The article in its present state leaves a lot to be desired, but the present state of the article is not the measure of notability for the subject. The subject itself is the measure of notability. Wikipedia is far from complete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so we're clear, I'm the editor in question and I ran the exact search you did. I declined to read through all the results to determine if I was missing something because it's not incumbent on me to prove the article is notable. It's incumbent on the article to assert notability. It doesn't. The article says Wilson played college football, was signed as a free agent by an NFL team and cut before playing a snap of pro football. None of that makes him presumptively notable. If he's received significant coverage as a person then he's notable. Has he? We are dancing around the issue. It shouldn't be necessary to be an expert in Marshall football in order to evaluate the importance of the subject. Why is this person important? We don't know and the article doesn't tell us. Instead of being dismissive and rude, you might consider improving the article. You said there's significant coverage so I assumed that you were prepared to state what that coverage was. Google News hits alone aren't significant coverage without context. If I misunderstood your claim then I apologize. Mackensen (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think I'm an "expert" in Marshall football? I just did the google news search and read a bunch of the hundreds of articles and left it at that. Something that anyone could have done--but you have admitted that you have not. Improvement of the article can come later when enthusiastic editors (perhaps me) have more time for editinig and development. But there is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so we're clear, I'm the editor in question and I ran the exact search you did. I declined to read through all the results to determine if I was missing something because it's not incumbent on me to prove the article is notable. It's incumbent on the article to assert notability. It doesn't. The article says Wilson played college football, was signed as a free agent by an NFL team and cut before playing a snap of pro football. None of that makes him presumptively notable. If he's received significant coverage as a person then he's notable. Has he? We are dancing around the issue. It shouldn't be necessary to be an expert in Marshall football in order to evaluate the importance of the subject. Why is this person important? We don't know and the article doesn't tell us. Instead of being dismissive and rude, you might consider improving the article. You said there's significant coverage so I assumed that you were prepared to state what that coverage was. Google News hits alone aren't significant coverage without context. If I misunderstood your claim then I apologize. Mackensen (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you should reconsider calling another editor a liar in a deletion debate, unless you think that somehow benefits your case. I don't recall having interacted with you previously and I don't know under what basis you're making that assertion. Of course there are hits for Wilson in Google News. It's very difficult for that to otherwise be the case when all Division I football games are covered nationally. I would also expect skill position players to receive more coverage than, say, a lineman. However, much of this coverage is routine. If there is "significant" coverage that implies that he did something noteworthy or stood out in some way, yet not enough to justify being drafted by an NFL team. Our current article is unhelpful, listing his touchdowns and receptions each year without context. College football players aren't automatically notable. Has he won any awards, besides being named to the C-USA All-Freshman team? That's probably not enough; it implies potential but not importance. Mackensen (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:RTS if you cannot comment on the coverage, you probably shouldn't comment at all. WP:N is based on the coverage of the subject of the article, not how well the article is written in its current state.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Holliday I'm not finding any significant coverage (or really any coverage at all) for his college career or any other measure of notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Scales Easily enough coverage to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails notability. Not widely known, even within the level he plays at. Caffeyw (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Subjective Importance is specifically one of the "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" and I believe it applies here to help us avoid "systemic bias". The idea concludes with "This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions." --Paul McDonald (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all None of them meets WP:GRIDIRON and coverage looks like routine sports reporting.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Outside local media, no evidence all of them meets WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE Secret account 15:55, 23 August 2013 (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.