Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Walker III

Add links
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 no consensus.

Spartaz Humbug! 06:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Kenneth Walker III

Kenneth Walker III (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)

Fails

WP:WHYN, which states that we need ample coverage so "that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic", and they need to be independent so the article is "fair and balanced". —Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of this discussion has been left at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football.—Bagumba (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the coverage to date is routine/local coverage that we know comes with anyone playing college football in the US, and we are supposed to avoid indiscriminate information, which is why NSPORT sets a bar of at least actually playing in a pro game. While one can argue the sources may meet the GNG, their routine and local nature does not make them independent, which is needed for the GNG. --Masem (t) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that "anyone playing college football in the US" receives this type of coverage reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. Each year, there are roughly 10,000 student athletes participating in college football in the US. Only a tiny percentage of those college football players receive the kind of in depth coverage we see here. That is why GNG has been such a robust tool in deleting articles on players who do not receive such coverage. See, e.g., Noel Phillips, Eric Liles, Lawrence Erekosima, Taveres Bowens, and Sha-ron Edwards. Cbl62 (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that not every college student gets detailed coverage, but the bulk that do are only coming from local sources (college newspapers, papers local to the school). There is definitely a separate narrower tier of college players regularly captured by ESPN and other non-geographic sources, those that are likely Heismen or top draft picks (probably on the order of 500 ppl each year), and that's the type of people where I would argue the GNG is met even if NSPORT is not. But everything here looks like a mid-tier college player: did well enough on their HS and college team to play often and thus come up in the discussion of the college team, but not to the level of being one of the top players. --Masem (t) 15:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While
WP:GEOSCOPE is a concern to consider, which is why I made sure to mention it and it swaying me from keep to weak keep, I know of no policy that says GNG can only be met by non-local sources. In other words, local sources are good sources in general for GNG unless there is a policy I am missing. RonSigPi (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The fact that GNG recommends multiple sources rules out most local topics.—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Masem - No. There is no policy suggesting that we disregard local or regional coverage for college football players. Even Bagumba rejects that argument. Coverage in a small-town newspaper might properly be discounted in a GNG analysis, but the LA Times and OC Register are major metropolitan dailies which are fully entitled to be counted as reliable, independent sources. You also fundamentally misconstrue NSPORTS which has from its drafting and inception been recognized as an inclusive standard, not an exclusionary one. Cbl62 (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we are rightfully going to consider the small town local coverage as improper, but allow a larger metro paper's local coverage, that's a systematic bias that we do not use. This is exactly something that is avoided at other pages, for example, for NCORP, local reviews of restaurants even if by the NYtimes or major newspapers are discounted for notability. If the story appeared in a non-metro section, that would different, but local coverage (as is here) fails the test of independence needed for GNG. --Masem (t) 15:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to cite the policy or guideline saying we are to disregard local and regional coverage in a sports context (restaurant reviews are a red herring). In any GNG analysis, an in-depth feature story in the Los Angeles Times, a major regional newspaper, is highly significant. This combined with the OC Register feature story and the other stories referenced above by WikiOriginal-9 are enough to surpass the GNG bar. Further, the assertion you appear to be making that the LA Times (a multiple, award-winning newspaper) "fails the test of independence" is unsupported. As for college newspapers, we don't count those at all in GNG analyses, so your concern about such publications is unwarranted. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Papers that are local to a geographic region will lack the independence needed by the GNG; I'm not saying they're wholly dependent sources, and if you had an ESPN article atop the existing one that goes in-depth about him, I'd accept that the GNG is likely met. but if you can't show in-depth coverage from outside that region, that's a problem, we don't see independence here.
For a major paper like the LATimes (same would go for NYTimes, WaPost, etc.) is that they have some sections that are written as global news, and some sections written as local news; it's easier to see the line on the physical printing of the paper, but the website still maintains these headings/by-lines. Anything in the global news section - even if it is covering an event in LA - can be treated as independent, and I have never seen a case of a LATimes "global news" story that cannot be corroborated with another non-LA area major newspaper. So as long as it appears in the global news section, that's fine. But LATimes has their various local sections, and in this specific case, they have a column in the sports pages dedicated to each of the major colleges in the region (of which the LATimes article here falls inot) Anything that appears there is a local story for the purposes of evaluating independence. So it is not the case that the LATimes should be treated as local, only a subset of its stories that appear in their local sections should be considered local and thus not independent for the coverage of the topic when considering the GNG. If you can prove out a truly independent source, the LATimes and OC stories are great additions to flesh it out, but alone it is not. It's needed to avoid setting a very low bar for the mass inclusion of high-school and college athletes before they have had any type of career, barring those that are considered exceptional to the sports world. --Masem (t) 16:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually some national coverage in ESPN. See here. Your position that no articles should be permitted on college athletes unless there are in-depth feature stories in national media outlets is simply your opinion, a minority view that is neither policy nor practice. The notion that regional and local sports coverage should be disregarded is not even supported by the nominator on this AfD. As noted, GNG already provides a robust bar to avoid mass inclusion of college athletes. Cbl62 (talk)
That ESPN article is not significant coverage, though; it's just a news blurb. That doesn't help. And actually going back to how NSPORT was developed, they were very much concerned about flooding articles with non-pro players to start. It was developed recognizing that finding coverage of nearly any college football players is trivial if one is just looking at that they played the game; going pro was a factor that elevated them. This is setting a very dangerous level. --Masem (t) 00:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ESPN piece is 1500 characters long, not just a "blurb". More fundamentally, you are misstating history. I was involved in the debate over the development of NSPORT, and it was very clear in that debate that NSPORT was intended as an inclusive standard and that college athletes could also have articles if they passed GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the internet age, I consider HS recruit coverage to be
WP:ROUTINE for notability purposes. Wikipedia:Notability asks for articles that are "worthy of notice". I don't believe the encyclopedia is improved if a player's notability needs to be dependent on details of their recruit process.—Bagumba (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:GNG where the actual performance is underwhelming relative to the press coverage. Such an override/exception would IMO inject an undue level of subjectivity into the analysis. GNG provides us with a sufficiently robust basis to weed out the truly unnotable college football players such as Eric Liles and Lawrence Erekosima. Cbl62 (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:NOTDIARY)[13].—Bagumba (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
If GNG is satisfied (as it is here), and you are looking elsewhere (
WP:WHYN) for a reason to overcome the presumption of notability, then you are seeking an exception to, or override of, the GNG presumption. I'm not arguing that Walker was an all-time great, but he did appear in 44 games at a high-profile position for a major program and generated abundant, significant press coverage. I believe a reasonably rounded article can be supported. I further believe that this type of AfD encourages a deletionist approach by those who seek to disallow regional coverage and limit coverage of college football players to "those that are likely Heismen or top draft picks". Cbl62 (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not looking to short circuit GNG in general. For college basketball, I created Tony Parker (basketball, born 1993), a serviceable college player at UCLA, but he had more sources for GNG, and writing a full article was not a problem. I had thought of creating Walker before, but it failed my own checks for GNG. Your expansion of Walker's bio to its current size is about as large as I honestly imagine it can get without resorting to trivia or digging up game-by-game stats.—Bagumba (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Cbl62 arguments. Pretty marginal case though. Jhn31 (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete A dedicated piece in the LA Times would normally qualify in my book. But since it's within the geographical area of UCLA (and even has a column dedicated to UCLA sports) I'd say the Times is not entirely
    independent here, so that knocks it down a few notches. This column would never be written if Walker played for, say, Notre Dame. Perhaps it'd be written in the South Bend Tribune, in which case we'd be disregarding it. All the other sources are either routine or local. Lizard (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Cbl62's arguments. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I read the
    Power Five conference school is far more important than a Ohio Regional Campus Conference school. Likewise, the general popularity of UCLA and its sports teams is far greater than the Ohio University – Chillicothe's sports teams and this flows down to the athletes of those teams. Even just thinking about the concept of something being "worthy of notice", this will slant towards major population centers. All this considered, I think that also favors keeping (though still not moving from weak keep above because I would like to see a greater number of sources). RonSigPi (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
When I take off my Wikipedia hat, I think that pretty much anything having to do with My Little Pony is not "worthy of notice". But here we are with our Wikipedia hats on, and we ought not apply our subjective opinions. Instead, "worthy of notice" is properly viewed from a more objective standard, and the fact that the fourth largest newspaper in the US (and the OC Register as well) deemed him worthy of detailed feature stories means that he has been found, objectively, to be "worthy of notice". Also, it's incorrect to say he was "never higher than 3rd on the depth chart." He was actually a starter at wide receiver in both 2015 and 2016. Cbl62 (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming they lined up with 3 wide receivers it could potentially be true. What I meant was that he was never higher than the team's number 3 receiver. Maybe he was, I was just assuming based on his numbers relative to the other receivers on the team. But anyway, the above rant was me "taking off my Wikipedia hat," so it should be taken lightly. Obviously I recognize that Wikipedia has different standards than real life, and those are what I took into account when I made my !vote. Lizard (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 15:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- If he didn't play at UCLA he wouldn't have had this coverage. I'd like to think the standard for inclusion is a little bit stronger than that, but this is definitely a very close case I could see going either way. Do we really want to set the precedent that someone could be notable just because of the market they played in? --Church Talk 19:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not the "market" but the coverage that passes
      WP:GNG that says it doesn't apply if the subject played at UCLA.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Church is not citing GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Paulmcdonald I'm not arguing that, per GNG you are 100 percent correct that with those sources he is in fact notable. My question isn't so much a fact of is he but should he be notable? If the article stays then I am one hundred percent fine with it, but I don't think someone who did very little of note on the football field and who's coverage mainly exists because he played for a large media market should be eligible. Respectfully, --Church Talk 21:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kobra98 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Kobra98 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
  • Comment - I can't agree that the coverage Walker received can be disregarded because it is local. The LA metro area has a larger population than most countries. It is one thing to give little or no weight to the local paper in a town of 500 doing a profile on the local high school team's backup center. But the LA Times has thousands of amateur athletes within the LA area it can profile, and if it chooses to focus on a particular one that is a significant editorial decision by a reliable source. And if other reliable sources, even within the LA area, make a similar editorial decision that is also significant towards establishing notability. However, although this particular subject meets our notability criteria, I am sympathetic to Bagumba's argument that to date he has not done anything of particularly lasting significance, either by playing in the pros or by some lasting amateur achievement. So perhaps our criteria don't quite work in this case, and given that it is a BLP I can see an argument to delete this in spite of barely meeting notability criteria to avoid the possibility of future mischief. Rlendog (talk) 18:09, 29 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_Walker_III&oldid=1137968705"