Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Cooper

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Everybody seems to agree this fails WP:NGRIDIRON. The question is whether it passes WP:GNG in the alternative, and there's no agreement on that. There's lots of sources that talk about him, but people don't agree on whether they're WP:ROUTINE coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Cooper

edit

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

Ethan Cooper (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)

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines set out in WP:NGRIDIRON, i.e. he never played in a regular season game for a professional football organization. He is currently a free agent and his only experience has been on practice squads. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I did, and the article presented there is absolutely routine - it just notes a local former high school player will participate at the NFL Combine. It's as routine as they get, especially since he never played an NFL game. SportingFlyer talk 03:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, you are entitle to your opinion. What I took issue with was that you said all the articles were written in the span of a week, when the first was written when he was in college in 2016. I wouldn't classify it as routine, but I digress. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete third party references in the articles and that I can find through searches appear to all be transactional reporting in nature which typically are not considered add to notability. He could achieve notability through his college play but that is rare for offensive linemen and it does not appear to be such an exception. Other references are either blog posts or team pages that also do not meet the reference requirements. It's possible that he could gain notability (it's happened before) but in this case it has not happened yet that I can see.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald: Take a look at the sources set forth below and see if they change your mind. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are much better, great research! Passes WP:GNG and changing to Keep--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald: What about WP:NGRIDIRON ? --David Tornheim (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about it? WP:NGRIDIRON has always been interpreted to be inclusive and not exclusive. Passing WP:GNG is more than enough. There is more than one path to notability. For example, WP:ABELINCOLN didn't pass WP:NGRIDIRON either...--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but unlike our subject here, Lincoln's primary claim to notability had nothing to do with football (or athletics in general). SportingFlyer talk 06:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thus proving there is more than one path to notability. WP:NGRIDIRON is one, WP:GNG is another. --Paul McDonald (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree - I think they're all pretty routine coverage. Just because a college athlete gets a feature story written about them doesn't mean that they deserve an article on this site, and all of the articles you've written about can be classified as a "local man tries to make local professional football team" with the exception of the Pro Football Weekly article, which I don't have access to. Apart from Pro Football Weekly, all of the articles are local to either the city he tried out in, the city he played college ball in, and the city he played high school in, and they all talk about how he's trying to become a professional football player. He's just a guy who played college ball and couldn't make the pros. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and I believe the GNG presumption. SportingFlyer talk 22:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of "routine" as including multiple feature stories in multiple mainstream media outlets is unsupported by the language of WP:ROUTINE, contrary to the language of WP:GNG, and well outside the mainstream. Cbl62 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, though. There's a lot of routine sports coverage in the vein of "local man wins award" per WP:ROUTINE, even in feature stories. I know this as a former sports journalist - hyper-local sports coverage sells papers. The fact every article prefaces his name with the name of his high school or college demonstrates his notability is very limited. And remember, WP:GNG is a presumption. The fact he meets neither WP:GRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH and is only covered in his home state doesn't lend itself to that presumption. SportingFlyer talk 01:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may not think that your view of feature coverage is well out of the mainstream, and you're entitled to your opinion, but the long history of similar AfD discussions shows a clear consensus that this type of feature story coverage is (a) not routine, and (b) sufficient to pass the GNG bar. You may want to review the Player notability discussion library. Cbl62 (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, to which I would ask all to please read WP:ROUTINE closely. You will find that it applies only to events and not people. Further, you'll find that "sports scores" as is defined in routine is way below the bar of "feature articles" which this subject has. For a counter-essay, you can read WP:NOTROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the "keep" in the "player notability discussion library" and I see about five or six editors who will vote keep on any college football article with any coverage at all, and a number of other voters who occasionally disagree and get railroaded in the process. I don't view this as consensus. This is actually a WP:BLP1E fail. Furthermore, there's no reason why WP:ROUTINE can't apply to people, especially people who participate in routine events such as Mr. Cooper. SportingFlyer talk 01:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The accusation that there is a group "who will vote keep on any college football article with any coverage at all" is a gross misrepresentation of fact that should be withdrawn. The participants at the college football project have differing views but are pretty solid at policing and deleting articles that lack significant coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diocemy_Saint_Juste was for a running back who failed WP:GRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH and didn't have any feature stories outside the state he played in. I noted here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dalton_Crossan the article was borderline, but all of the coverage after my vote (I didn't go back and look at it) are pieces from his local area saying he's trying to make the NFL. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmie_Kaylor was kept off the back of coverage again local to the Colorado area. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Aiono received a two-sentence blurb in the Orlando Sentinel, was saved off of coverage local to the Utah area. Even after the AfD, that article in mainspace is a stub without any sources! Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Waisome was mentioned in a coatrack article about a minor senior bowl and had an ESPN recruitment article named after him but was saved off of local Florida sources. I'm less concerned about Waisome because he apparently played for a national championship team, but still. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Demario_Richard was kept off the back of two articles about his recruitment and about five articles from a student newspaper of the school he participated at. SportingFlyer talk 08:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is another one of those articles: there were two public interest articles written about the fact a local player was trying to make the Steelers, a relatively short article about how two Harrisburg players were trying to make the Steelers from a Harrisburg paper, a local article saying a local is hopeful for being drafted on the last day, et cetera. There's no national coverage of any sort, he didn't have a notable college career since he played at a DII school, and has only received niche coverage once he was released by the Steelers for being on the Giants' practice squad. If you look at any other sports notability guideline, just because a player receives coverage does not mean that player is notable. Heck, not to other stuff exists, but we just deleted an AFL first-round draft pick! (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paddy_Steinfort was a bad pick by Richmond and the article failed NPOV, but still.) SportingFlyer talk 08:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sometimes editors disagree. The comments about "local" coverage do not apply to WP:GNG, the word "local" is not even on the page. Significant coverage is defined as coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Note that there is no mention of the distribution of the publication.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: You are advocating a drastic change in Wikipedia's notability standards to eliminate any weight being given to feature stories in major metropolitan newspapers from Pittsburgh. As you well know, this drastic change was rejected at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Local sources, again -- despite your advocacy there. Having lost the argument there, it appears that you are now simply forum-shopping for a second bite at the apple by filibustering the same issue here. If you want to continue discussing broader issues, I am happy to do so on my Talk page, but I think you've made your view clear for purposes of this AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not advocating for a drastic change, and I don't appreciate you misinterpreting my argument - and my comment at the local sources has nothing to do with football, but rather with local political cruft we're seeing a lot of at the moment. My argument for Mr. Cooper is simply he's a non-notable football player who fails WP:GRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. The coverage of him fails WP:BLP1E, with the event being his attempt to make the NFL in Pennsylvania (apart from the PFW blurb). The fact he got a couple write-ups was largely because he was a local product, not because he's notable - he didn't get any press with the Packers or Chiefs that I can see, for instance. SportingFlyer talk 20:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were saying the feature stories about Cooper from Pittsburgh's metropolitan newspapers should not be given any weight. I apologize if I misinterpreted your argument. Cbl62 (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple feature stories are the antithesis of routine. Moreover, there is no bar on the use of coverage in major metropolitan newspapers from a city like Pittsburgh to establish notability. To the contrary, a proposal to limit the use of local sources in biographical articles was recently rejected at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Local sources, again. Cbl62 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that multiple feature stories are clearly WP:NOTROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Local athletes can have multiple feature stories written about them and yet still not be notable. No one is attacking the Pittsburgh newspaper for being "local" - the problem is the athlete only received coverage because the local papers covered a local athlete trying to make a local professional team, which they do routinely - and the athlete then failed to make the team! SportingFlyer talk 20:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated before (and I think in this discussion, but just to be sure) the word "local" is nowhere to be found in WP:GNG. I have yet to find any reference to a policy, to a guideline, or even an essay that disqualifies coverage because it is "local" -- if you have a reference, please provide it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with local sources, except local sources generate a ton routine sports coverage, and I strongly believe all of the coverage of him is routine, in part because he's only notable for being a local football player. SportingFlyer talk 00:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case (and I'm not saying that it is) it would still pass WP:GNG based on the standards provided there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which standards are you talking about? Routine sources go against the premises of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. SportingFlyer talk 06:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're just repeating yourself at this point, but feature stories in major metropolitan newspapers are plainly not "routine". Cbl62 (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: Per your request: You are wrong in relying on NGRIDIRON as a basis for deleting. NGRIDIRON is clear and explicit that it is an inclusionary standard only and that athletes may still have articles if they pass under WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'm still sticking with delete based on SprintFlyer's arguments. That's what I see too. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for those that support the delete position: are you stating the subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON and that's all that matters, not even looking at WP:GNG; or are you stating that the subject fails both WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG? Or something else? Please summarize your positions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and either fails WP:GNG due to the fact all reporting on him is routine or passes WP:GNG and fails WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS/WP:INDISCRIMINATE for receiving almost all of his coverage from his attempt to make the Steelers. SportingFlyer talk 01:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That helps, I don't think anyone here holds the position that the subject passes WP:NGRIDIRON at this time. I really have a hard time accepting the feature articles as "routine" because most certainly not every college player gets articles like that--he had to do something to warrant the press. I fail to see how WP:BLP1E applies because it's more than one event. I've never bought the WP:NOTNEWS argument because it makes no sense that someone or something would not be notable because they have too much coverage in the news. And as for WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the subject matter and articles clearly are WP:DISCRIMINATE and are on a focused topic rather than summary only descriptions of works; lyrics databases; excessive listings of unexplained statistics; nor exhaustive logs of software updates... nor anything close to that. It seems to come down to WP:GNG and how that is interpreted and applied. Have I summarized properly?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The other important wrinkle to note here is he only got significant coverage after he was no longer a college player - it was routine Steelers beat reporting about a former local college player. (I believe feature articles can be routine, too - we disqualify high school sports articles, for instance.) I don't think there's any argument the transactional signed/released by Giants/Packers reporting is routine? In any case, the conflict between keep/delete here is pretty well defined, not sure there's much more to say. SportingFlyer talk 10:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our insanely low criteria for notability of playes of American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I said in my vote that I thought he failed WP:GNG and that hasn't changed. Responding to Paulmcdonald's comment above, I think the word "routine" is often used to mean "typical" or "not unusual". This would be the opposite of what would make something "encyclopedic" or "worthy of note". In this specific case, this type of coverage is given to every player trying to make an NFL team and I think the SNG is clear that merely trying out for an NFL team does not grant automatic notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word "routine" can certainly mean that, but the guideline WP:ROUTINE provides much more specific and restrictive definitions. In Wikipedia, we often use "handles" or "shortcuts" to easily remember essays and policy and guidelines--and those are normally one word or an otherwise easy-to-remember "handle" for our own reference. But they point to a much more robust definition with extensive content that is argued, discussed, edited, and argued some more. Simply reading the content at the destination page of WP:ROUTINE shows that it is much more extensive in its definitions than the single word "routine" -- it's important that we all remember that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The discussion around this AfD has been constructive. I continue to believe the coverage, including feature stories in major metropolitan newspapers, is not WP:ROUTINE, that such significant coverage is all that is required under GNG, and that GNG is the bedrock of our objective standards for notability. At the same time, I recognize that there are significant factors that make this a close and controversial case. First, Cooper was a Division II player, and players at this level are very rarely notable. Second, we have not found significant coverage received by Cooper during his college playing career. Instead, the coverage found all relates (as others have noted) to his efforts to make an NFL roster, all consists of local/regional coverage, and could be viewed by some as "feel-good, underdog-tries-for-the-big-time" coverage. Because of these unique attributes, this AfD should be considered a very weak precedent whichever way it closes. Cbl62 (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing how this coverage is routine. Not every single newspaper coverage of a living person is routine. There is a very specific meaning of what routine coverage, and I am definitely not under the impression that every single one of the sources Cbl62 provided is too routine to be able to pass GNG. Imo, this is a clear pass of the general notability guideline.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm persuaded by SportingFlyer's extensive analysis above. What we have here is a DII All-American who went undrafted, bounced around a couple practice squads, and is currently a free agent. WP:GNG is ultimately about the presumption of notability; if the sources meet all the other criteria, we presume the subject is notable, unless proven otherwise. It's not enough for sources to exist; you have to be able to write an article from them. The current article is utterly routine, and there's no indication that it will become otherwise. Most of the non-routine coverage is of his attempt to make an NFL team. There's nothing unusual or even interesting about that, so far he is unsuccessful. Hundreds if not thousands of young men are in that position every year. Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. The newspaper stories are more than routine coverage. Discounting a small-town newspaper story about a local kid who becomes or tries to become successful is one thing. Discounting coverage in multiple large cities on the basis that they are all local is silly. Many people try out for sports teams. Most don't get even one full length article written about them. He did, several times. Rlendog (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ethan_Cooper&oldid=1086064764"