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. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 16:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Polson

[edit]
Jarrod Polson (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)

Subject is a college basketball player who does not meet WP:NCOLLATH - has not won any major awards or hold any records. He has not appeared in repeated, independent, significant coverage beyond game reports and as such does not pass WP:GNG Rikster2 (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you really want to wonder if the first five sources on the Google News link create a notability standard for "every scholarship player on a major conference team"?  I think you are still working the non-starter aspect of this topic.  If you didn't like a non-starter having a stand-alone article, you could have found or created a suitable topic to which to merge the topic instead of bringing this case to AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally don't agree with redirecting non-notable individuals to associated topics because I think it misleads readers using dynamic search or who are trying to Wikilink names in other articles. That's why I didn't suggest something that isn't compulsory. If you want to suggest that as an outcome, be my guest. Rikster2 (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I wasn't talking about redirecting a non-notable topic, I was talking about redirecting a notable topic.  And I've already given factors that favor keeping this as a stand alone article.  I don't see you dispute that the first five sources in the News link minimally suffice for WP:GNG.  So what notability argument are you making?  Are you claiming WP:N's "not worthy of notice", which trumps WP:GNG?  Are you perhaps trying to make a WP:NOT argument and calling it "notability"?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as the comment about redirects for non-notable topics, what exactly do you mean by "dynamic search".  How does the Wikilink to Thomas Mantell at Franklin, KY mislead readers?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Praemonitus, while I sympathize with your perspective about the relative priorities of society regarding academics and athletics, let us recognize that Wikipedia is a volunteer organization and most of us edit those articles in which we have the greatest personal interest. Nothing is stopping anyone from expanding articles about the University of Kentucky's presidents and faculty members. There are examples of in-depth biographies of university presidents, some of which are even Good Articles and Feature Articles (see, e.g., Andrew Sledd and John Tigert). It's all a matter of our personal priorities in editing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PROF requires that a Professor have significant credentials and/or accomplishments relative to their peers before they are recognized as notable. Most such are only earned late in a person's career. For the most part, WP:ATHLETE requires an athlete to be paid to play in a professional game. These are not the same, and I suspect it is why Wikipedia has such an enormous number of articles about athletes of every stripe. Sorry, but this seems like an imbalance. But no matter. Praemonitus (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily striking my !vote until I can review further and conduct independent Google News and Google News Archive searches. I'm embarrassed that I did not notice that Unscintillating's first, second and fifth sources were all from the same newspaper (Lexington Herald Leader), and therefore only count as a single source per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See new "keep" comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually hadn't commented on this AfD, although I frequently do on basketball-related AfDs, so I understand why you probably thought it was me. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, Jrcla. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, second and fourth source count as one per GNG since its all from the paper that covers every detail of UK and their recruits - even the marginal ones like Polson's who is essentially being forced off he team to open a scholarship for next year. Rikster2 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rikster, you are, of course, correct regarding multiple articles from the same source counting as a single source per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that "sources" in WP:GNG means at least two?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He's been their toughest playmaker so far."
  • "Archie Goodwin and Polson, the two most consistent guys..."
  • "Terrific play by Polson, the spin through traffic. ...[he] has been able to make plays better than anyone else."
  • "Polson continues to be the guy that is holding them in this game."
  • A Lexington Herald writer also writing about the Robert Morris game says, "Jarrod Polson, who bookended the season with big performances in the opener against Maryland and then here Tuesday night, and Archie Goodwin led an improbable UK rally."
I added the following two references to the article:
  • Jerry Tipton (Herald Leader) (January 27, 2011). "Nerves were just another hurdle for Polson to overcome. 'little guy' has earned more than victory-cigar status through perseverance". KentuckySports.com. Retrieved 2013-03-19. His 30 free throws made in 37 attempts in a game as a junior for West Jessamine remains a Kentucky high school record and serves as evidence of Polson's willingness to take on defenders.
  • "SBI classic broadcasts". Bartlett, Tennessee. Retrieved 2013-03-19. Jan. 24, 2009, In this game, Jarrod Polson breaks the KHSAA state high school free throw record and scored 51 points in the game personally.
Unscintillating (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unscintillating, game reports are expressly not usuable to establish GNG. I would particularly not try to use comments of broadcasters reacting to the game they are calling to establish GNG because their job is to comment about what is happening on the court at that moment. Look, I still haven't seen continued independent coverage for Polson. This reminds me of the AfD discussion for Justin Watts of UNC from a couple years ago. Very similar cases - not notable except to their school fanbase. Rikster2 (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rikster2, After reading my last post, you could have withdrawn your nomination assertion that Polson did not hold any records.  We know from the article edit history that at 2013-03-17T00:27:43‎ you state, "Will AfD when I have more time", and then at 2013-03-17T00:37:46 you state, "Afd: Nominated for deletion".  That is ten minutes and 3 seconds spent preparing this nomination.  When you posted your nomination, you were advised, "Welcome to the deletion discussion for the selected article...discussion guidelines are available."  One of the discussion guidelines is,
FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rikster2, You have not answered my questions as to the nature of your notability argument, but your argument seems partly to be based on the "not worthy of notice" clause of WP:N, which can be argued even if the topic passes WP:GNG.  You've stated a notability argument, "game reports are expressly not usuable [sic] to establish GNG", which is partially a red herring because I made no such claim.  Regarding the term "game reports", WP:GNG is the general notability guide, and doesn't get down into details such as "game reports".  As described by the nutshell, a notable topic is one that has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time".  Our article identifies ESPN as "an American global cable television network".  ESPN has provided "significant attention by the world at large" giving in-depth attention to the topic.  Whether or not it satisfies "sufficiently", no, not by itself, but the material is still adding to the wp:notability of the topic.  Viewers of the ESPN broadcast may look to Wikipedia to find out more about Jarrod Polson.  The second argument is, "I...haven't seen continued" coverage for Polson.  The term "continued" is part of the WP:N nutshell, and is not "continued" but "over a period of time".  I already stated in my !vote that the first five sources in the Google news archive show a topic that has received attention over a period of time.  The word echoes your opening nomination, which uses the word "repeated", as if such comes from a notability guideline.  IMO the article we have now will serve the encyclopedia far into the future.  IMO the effect of deleting this article is to drive off editors, whether or not the editors are fans; and undermine our guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 24 March 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.
More