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.
Delete Agents can be notable, if they are along the lines of
Scott Boras. That Genske was the agent to numerous high profile players does not make him notable. All coverage is in passing, and not in significant depth as required by
WP:GNG. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
18:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep I Think the Sports Business Daily profile pushes him over the threshold but it's by a slim margin. Article certainly needs better sourcing as the client list is entirely unsourced. Perhaps rename the article to focus more on the Agency itself.
Spanneraol (
talk)
19:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I was gonna say that Sports Business Daily profile is really about the agency, and not about the agent. An article on the agency might be notable, but the agents seems not to be. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
13:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - conditional. The current article is nothing but spam for The Legacy Agency. Remove the The Legacy Agency section those irrelevant lists of clients and then see what's left. If reliable, in depth, 3rd party sources can be found to assert notability per
WP:BIO, then keep, but otherwise delete without prejudice to creating a stand alone article for The Legacy Agency if it can pass
WP:GNG and
WP:Org.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
03:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - though I agree with Kudpung on the current status of the article, I disagree with The Banner on GNG - via
HighBeam Research, I found several articles that seem to go beyond "trivial mentions" and thus would satisfy GNG, as well as one regarding him as a trial lawyer prior to sports –
[1][2][3][4] – while admittedly those articles do not directly pertain to him, rather to his advocacy for his clients, outside of a feature article on him, nothing is going to directly pertain to him. As such, I support keeping the article, albeit a rather weak support. GoPhightins!20:38, 24 December 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.
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.
Delete Agents can be notable, if they are along the lines of
Scott Boras. That Genske was the agent to numerous high profile players does not make him notable. All coverage is in passing, and not in significant depth as required by
WP:GNG. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
18:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep I Think the Sports Business Daily profile pushes him over the threshold but it's by a slim margin. Article certainly needs better sourcing as the client list is entirely unsourced. Perhaps rename the article to focus more on the Agency itself.
Spanneraol (
talk)
19:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I was gonna say that Sports Business Daily profile is really about the agency, and not about the agent. An article on the agency might be notable, but the agents seems not to be. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
13:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - conditional. The current article is nothing but spam for The Legacy Agency. Remove the The Legacy Agency section those irrelevant lists of clients and then see what's left. If reliable, in depth, 3rd party sources can be found to assert notability per
WP:BIO, then keep, but otherwise delete without prejudice to creating a stand alone article for The Legacy Agency if it can pass
WP:GNG and
WP:Org.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
03:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - though I agree with Kudpung on the current status of the article, I disagree with The Banner on GNG - via
HighBeam Research, I found several articles that seem to go beyond "trivial mentions" and thus would satisfy GNG, as well as one regarding him as a trial lawyer prior to sports –
[1][2][3][4] – while admittedly those articles do not directly pertain to him, rather to his advocacy for his clients, outside of a feature article on him, nothing is going to directly pertain to him. As such, I support keeping the article, albeit a rather weak support. GoPhightins!20:38, 24 December 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.