Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Cabinda

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Cabinda

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

Submitting incomplete AFD on behalf of nominator. Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined. Simply stating that a person is a member of a team does not make them wiki worthy. There is no indication as to whether or not this player has sat on the bench the whole time, is a member of the practice squad, has played but is an average player or is quite the accomplished player. Neither the original editor nor any other has chosen to share why this player deserves an article. As far as I am concerned, simply being on a team does not make you worthy. Especially if you never saw playing time or in the course of your care saw a significantly limited playing time. Editor responded to my speedy notification by asking if I googled the guy before I nominated him. My response was I should not have to google him. Even a one sentence justification withe appropriate citation would be sufficient but rather than share the information editors want me to google the subject to find out why he is important? What is the purpose of wiki if they don't, at a minimum, supply the basic info? Postcard Cathy (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- yes, you should have to google him before you nominate an article for deletion. Please please please read WP:BEFORE, as your entire line of reasoning is downright ludicrous. You realize in the time that I have spent telling you this I could have worked on the article, but no. I did not have time to write much of an article when I started this and in the traditional collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, I got the ball rolling in the hopes that someone -- myself or someone else -- would improve it later. There are ample sources to do so. He so obviously meets GNG that it baffles me why, other than out of spite, this was brought here. Also, I was not notified that this discussion is taking place, a violation of policies that the nominator is (occasionally) so eager to enforce. Sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] It is ridiculous the article made it this far. Go Phightins! 15:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. MB298 (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Could be denied on procedural grounds based on willful failure to comply with WP:BEFORE. The nominator is correct that the article is in poor shape and needs work, but initiating a flawed AfD is not the solution. Instead, there are tags that could be slapped on the article denoting the need to improve multiple aspects of the article ... or just improve it. Aside from procedure, the subject appears to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's just a WP:STUB article and that's perfectly acceptable. It meets GNG as others have mentioned. Just because no one has fleshed out the article isn't a reason for deletion, there's WP:NORUSH. — dain omite 20:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Decline of an incorrect Speedy on a stub is insufficient reason to delete, especially when notability is clear to anyone who makes even a tiny effort. Softlavender (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really going against the grain here, but in reviewing articles online and that Go Phightins! has provided, it seems like the college athlete in question has only received routine coverage through media sources either associated with the Big Ten Conference or in different metro areas in Pennsylvania. Many college football athletes will receive mentions and some coverage in articles as the person in question has, but the question is whether or not the coverage makes him/her notable.

Also seems as though this college athlete fails the WP:NCOLLATH test that has yet to be mentioned yet as I don't see anything online that suggests he has won any notable conference or national awards or that he has received national media coverage as an individual. Cubbie15fan (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call The Philadelphia Inquirer an insignificant media mention; if you compare the mentions Cabinda has received to 90% of other college athletes, he clearly receives more. Regardless of whether he meets NCOLLATH, he meets GNG, which supersedes that anyway. Regional publications are always considered legitimate sources when conferring notability. I would be intrigued if you could name a college athlete that is not a quarterback or running back that does meet your criteria, which by the way, are not Wikipedia's. Go Phightins! 03:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point I am getting at is that while this college athlete seems like a great guy, superb athlete, and a team leader, I am not convinced that he should have a wiki article (at least at this point). I respectfully disagree and do not believe he meets GNG or NOCOLLATH given that the media coverage he has received up to this point appears to be either routine coverage of making a great play after a game or a routine Q&A/interview.

The sources are indeed legit, and in no way am I discounting the value of the The Philadelphia Inquirer, Post-Gazette, or The Patriot-News. Respectfully, the criteria I mentioned previously are straight from NCOLLATH. To your question of college athletes meeting notability criteria (and I must disclose I created both of these pages) good examples I can provide are Mike Dudek and Kendrick Nunn, neither of which are quarterbacks or running backs. Cubbie15fan (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources are neither routine coverage of making a great play after a game nor a routing Q&A/interview, the latter of which especially, by the way, would be more than enough to confer notability as well. Go Phightins! 18:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We may end up agreeing to disagree, but (again respectfully) what exactly from either article do you see as something that establishes notability for inclusion as a wiki article? Cubbie15fan (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated feature articles in the three top newspapers in Pennsylvania certainly seems to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as per WP:GNG. Go Phightins! 22:27, 15 January 2016 (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.