-
Rod Taylor (American football) (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
This one suffered from a lack of participation. Taylor was an offensive lineman who was selected in the 7th round of the NFL draft. He was seen as a can't miss prospect coming out of high school but never really panned out. Regardless, the two delete votes after mine were rather weak, as they failed to take into account his sourcing from college. Where GNG is concerned, reliable sources are reliable sources, and it disregarded these sources as less substantial because they were "youth sports", which isn't a strong argument. There are football players who never played in the NFL or CFL that have articles which passed AfD. Due to the low turnout, the proper close in my view would be a No consensus. Even the nominated acknowledged several sources and said his claim to notability was stronger than other football AfDs. ~
EDDY (
talk/
contribs)~
02:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - It isn't important whether No Consensus would have been a valid conclusion. Delete was also an obvious valid conclusion. We should not be second-guessing and overriding obvious reasonable closes.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
05:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I was one of the "weak delete votes," so I'm not going to endorse this, but my vote wasn't weak at all - none of the coverage was good: much of it was from blogs and only short mentions in any case, some of it was transactional, one of which was about a crime, and the rest of the coverage presented was routine coverage of him as a high school player (his recruiting).
SportingFlyer
T·
C
11:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Did you closely examine the sourcing however? While
Bengals Wire is not the New York Times, it's not a blog and is considered a RS.
From the Associated press.
Sure this is about his injury, but it also includes stats from freshman year and I wouldn't characterize it as routine.
Also this about recruiting, which shouldn't be discounted since it's high school.
More significant coverage. ~
EDDY (
talk/
contribs)~
13:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I did. The first is only a few sentences on a team's draft pick. The ESPN article is routine transactional, i.e. a player is injured. High school sports articles are always routine per youth sports. The last one isn't terrible, but it's a local article on two players invited to the NFL combine. Based on my reading, he wasn't a notable college football player and he clearly fails
WP:NGRIDIRON. Just because some sources exist doesn't mean someone qualifies for a standalone article, especially if they're in a profession which will receive coverage regardless of who is on the team. That's why I voted why I did, and I don't appreciate having that argument be called "weak."
SportingFlyer
T·
C
14:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- relist I find the delete !votes to be weak/wrong. Age of the athlete isn't a factor when considering GNG coverage and that seemed to be at the core of the delete arguments. That said, my own opinion here *also* isn't part of the SNG or GNG (that if you don't meet this particular SNG, GNG coverage needs to be really quite good). The keep argument, on the other hand, provided sources that look good. I think NC and relist would have been reasonable outcomes. Delete is tempting, but I think the delete !votes are weak enough you have to let others chime in first before you delete. Basically, I can't quite find a guideline-based consensus for deletion given the relative strength of arguments.
Hobit (
talk)
22:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Of the sources presented, the first source, ESPN, is a routine injury report. The second one is a blog and not reliable. The third AP article is clearly not significant coverage. The fourth is probably the best one, but it's on how he shoplifted. The fifth is a blog about the fact he got drafted, even though he never played in the NFL, and the last one is youth sports-based, which specifically doesn't qualify. These aren't good sources. He fails
WP:GNG and since he never played in the NFL,
WP:NGRIDIRON.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
22:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- The 1st is independent, reliable and non-trivial coverage, as are the 3rd and 4th. I don't buy "routine" here--no one covers *my* injuries for example. I wasn't aware that the GNG has anything about excluding youth sports coverage, could you point that out to me? That would make the !votes in the AfD a lot stronger.
Hobit (
talk)
22:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
-
- I would beg to disagree. We are using coverage from his high school years as an indication of his notability, not as the argument in itself. Very few football players are notable while playing in high school, but far more can use high school coverage for notability later on. Besides, a player can fail the notability guideline but still have enough sourcing to meet GNG. There is no reason why we should discount high school/college coverage just because it is during his amateur career. ~
EDDY (
talk/
contribs)~
14:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
|