Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Wimsatt

In the following article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Wimsatt will be addressed from different perspectives in order to provide a comprehensive and detailed analysis on the topic. Its origins, evolution, impact on society and possible future implications will be explored. Throughout these pages, we will seek to provide the reader with a complete and updated vision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Wimsatt, shedding light on its most relevant aspects and providing a clear and objective overview. Without a doubt, this article will serve as a source of knowledge and reflection for those interested in entering the world of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Wimsatt.
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 Draftify. Consensus is that there is enough content that this is likely worth incubating in draft space. I will move it momentarily. Star Mississippi 02:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Gavin Wimsatt

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Gavin Wimsatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCOLLATH. Only played for mere minutes. scope_creepTalk 21:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

These are all effectively the same news, making it routine in nature. scope_creepTalk 15:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
See also "Humble Hero" (part 1/part 2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Draftify The most recent references are part of a local high school season preview. Its possible that this is simply a case of WP:TOOSOON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete The level of coverage is just not enough to show notability. Not every mention of a high school athlete should be considered adding toward passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or draftify. This one is a close call IMO. WP:TOOSOON definitely comes to mind since he has only appeared as a backup in four games, completing a total of nine passes. See here. But the coverage is pretty deep (this, this, and the "Humble Hero" piece as examples). In the end, it's hard to conclude that this doesn't constitute GNG-level SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure how much "Rutgers Wire" contributes to GNG as it's a team-specific blog and the "Humble Hero" is part of the area high school football preview for Owensboro, Kentucky in the local newspaper . Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I hear you, and I'm a "weak keep". My assessment was as follows: The first one is published by USA Today, grouped under its Rutgers coverage, but USA Today is a reliable, independent source. The second is in-depth coverage from NJ.com which according to our Wikipedia article is a media source providing content to several major newspapers. The third piece is local, yes, but it has good depth, and there's no bar on relying on local coverage (though I tend to discount it a bit based on just how "local" it is and how much "depth" there is). Cbl62 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I've added draftify as another option. As football season approaches, and with the expectation that Wimsatt will be Rutgers' starting QB and savior, the coverage will build considerably over the next six to nine months. Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete some coverage exists, but not enough to pass WP:GNG at this point. He will likely play more in the coming years but the coverage that exists in January 2022 does not warrant an article. Frank Anchor 16:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Frank Anchor: @GPL93: This, this, and the "Humble Hero" piece are pretty deep coverage. Would you consider at least changing your vote to "draftify" to see if the new college season generates additional coverage? Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Changed to Draftify with same rationale as above. I did not even consider that as an option, but it makes more sense based on my "not notable yet" rationale Frank Anchor 16:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to a draft being created because it's possible that more coverage could accrue, but a hs preview from the local newspaper and the Rutger Wire aren't that notability lending. All of the "Team Wire" are online-only sites hosted under USA Today's overall web platform and essentially function as team specific sports blogs, so I would definitely not equate the Rutgers Wire article to carrying anywhere near as much weight as an article as being in USA Today. Even the new sources are the same routine area recruiting news (it's not like it's Arch Manning getting coverage from the national press) and beat coverage. Again, I do think its possible that this season could lead to more extensive coverage so I'm fine with this article existing in the draft space. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Do we really exclude local coverage? I can't find a guideline that does. And the coverage I've shown seems to be definition of WP:SIGCOV: "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
We exclude local coverage for high school athletes (per WP:NHSPHSATH), but not college. I think it's pretty clear Wimsatt will become notable if, as expect, he starts next fall and is half as good as predicted. Draftifying is not a bad option here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but Wimsatt is a college athlete and several of the in-depth pieces are from his college career (and the guideline you pointed me says "excludes the majority of local coverage," not all). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
You are right, he is a college athlete, though barely with nine pass completions in four games as a backup. I'm ok with either keeping based on the current coverage or with draftifying until the fall. The only option I disagree with is outright deleting. Cbl62 (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep or Draftify. Why anyone as promising has him would want to join Rutgers football is beyond me, we've been a disaster for years... Nevertheless, I'd say the sources from Cbl62 and BF do go beyond routine transactional coverage and include what looks like non-local SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Rutgers = The birthplace of college football. It's been 150 years but still ... Cbl62 (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Rutgers also has a Paul Robeson Cultural Center and a Paul Robeson Boulevard and a Paul Robeson Plaza and Paul Robeson's face is mandated to be visible within 50 feet of anywhere on campus. Sometimes when the Endowment committee senses donors are getting distracted by things like the third string burglary ring or Flood bribing professors it will send out a frantic alumni mailer with the headline "The Birthplace of College Football" and then the text is just one 2600x3200 picture of Paul Robeson, to remind us what really matters. I live like a mile from the football stadium, I want them to continue sucking so traffic isn't so bad on game days. JoelleJay (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia