Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Walker

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 was to move this article to Draft: (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Walker

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article suffers from WP:CRYSTAL. There are a number of references about Tyson Walker but all of them appeared WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:NCOLLATH. Chirota (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Tyson Walker page should not be deleted because it causes not harm to anything or anyone, has the proper sources mentioned, and has no glaring mistakes. The page took a long time to make and deleting it would wipe away all that hard work. He is also part of the media due to his transfer of to Michigan State. He has becoming more and more known by basketball fans and deserves a wiki page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanrschroeder (talk • contribs)
@Deanrschroeder: Please remember that WP:NOHARM is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Please also remember that WP:GNG requires substantial coverage, not just WP:ROUTINE ones that report box scores and transactions. The article currently contains 3 sources: one is essentially a paraphrased press release, another is a player profile page and the third is a stats page. Ytoyoda (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see your complaints and I understand them, but I feel that there are other options instead of deletions. I see that there is a wiki page on other options other than deletion and I feel that the article can enter these options. Also, I used Cassius Winston and Joey Hauser wiki as sort of a template for this article so any reference problems I have would be similar to their wikis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanrschroeder (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deanrschroeder: I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out that your response will likely not convince anyone who's been through AfD discussions. And when you clicked on WP:NOHARM, you probably saw that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also an argument that will not get very far. Cassius Winston is a former Big 10 Player of the Year and an NBA draft pick, and has received substantially more coverage than Walker has. It's debatable whether Joey Hauser meets WP:GNG, but there's probably just enough coverage to get him over the line. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will argue that the the recent transfer news about him are not routine, they go into the subject in detail [1][2][3]. However, he still needs WP:SUSTAINED coverage to pass WP:GNG. So if there are good sources about him from the last few years (like this for example) then I would lean to pass. Alvaldi (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable yet. Suggest draftification to incubate until such time as he's drafted or is otherwise notable. StarM 02:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There doesn't appear to be any clear consensus yet; although current arguments against keeping this (in mainspace, at least) seem to be stronger. Has anybody considered any other WP:ATD, such as redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RandomCanadian he hasn't played for Michigan State and isn't mentioned at Christ the King, so I don't think a redirect is helpful to the reader. Draft with edits related to his play to keep six month timer going until he's notable preserves the content. That's why I still lean draft. StarM 16:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just giving food for thought; I don't have an opinion either way. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am for draftification. He is close to having notable coverage, since there are a few articles that start to go a bit more in-depth than routine coverage, but I don't think he is quite there yet. I don't think that a redirect to his previous schools is helpful either, for the reasons stated by Star Mississippi. Draftification seems the best solution to preserve the work of the page creator so that the page can be moved once Walker reaches notability (which he likely will). Mukedits (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with drafting the article. Alvaldi (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft the article. Seems to be a somewhat notable basketball player, though not yet notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Coverage seems to be mostly routine at this point. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 01:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I agree with Alvaldi that the transfer coverage does go into detail but is not sufficiently sustained to meet GNG. He has a good chance of garnering more SIGCOV in the near future. JoelleJay (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2021 (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.