Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Lacy


 * 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. v/r - TP 00:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Lacy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not make the notability guidelines for college athletes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opguip (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lacy and Trent Richardson are the starting running backs for Alabama, the No. 2 college football team in the USA.  He's already received a fair amount of non-trivial coverage, including some in the national media.  See, e.g., (1) Eddie Lacy opts for Alabama over Oklahoma, ESPN.com, Feb. 4, 2009; (2) Alabama's Lacy focusing on fumbles; USA Today, Aug. 10, 2011; (3) Eddie Lacy Interview, CBSSports.com; (4) Injury rumors swirl around Tide’s Eddie Lacy, NBC Sports, July 28, 2011; (5) Spin and control: Tide RB Eddie Lacy wants hands to catch up to his feet, The Birmingham News, Aug. 15, 2011; (6) Lacy taking his lapses of last year to heart Lacy taking his lapses of last year to heart, The Anniston Star, Aug. 11, 2011; (7) Dutchtown RB Lacy leads prospects headed out of state, The Advocate (Louisiana), Feb. 5, 2009; (8) 'Little Strain' Doesn't Bother Eddie Lacy, BamaMag.com, Aug. 10, 2011; (9) Alabama running back Eddie Lacy explains injury, AI.com; (10) Not a day too soon, UA signee Eddie Lacy gets word from the NCAA clearinghouse, Mobile Press-Register; (11) Alabama's Lacy awaits his chance, The Gadsden Times, Aug. 10, 2011; (12) Bama's Eddie Lacy focused; (13) Alabama's Eddie Lacy trying to avoid fumble troubles in new role as No. 2 back, The Republic (Indiana); (14) Tide's Lacy: I'll be ready, Tuscaloosa News; (15) Why Eddie Lacy Chose Alabama, Scout with FoxSports.com on msn; (16) An 'improved' Eddie Lacy making his move at Alabama, Mobile Press-Register, Aug. 23, 2011; (17) Lacy making mark with Griffins, The Advocate (Baton Rouge); (18) No more fumble-itis,  That’s Lacy’s promise as he rises to No. 2 on Tide depth chart, The Decatur Daily, August 11, 2011; (19)  Eddie Lacy now ready to embrace role as Crimson Tide's No. 2 running back, Ledger-Enquirer (Columbus, GA), August 11, 2011; (20) Lacy will try to take Panthers for spin, Press-Register, Nov. 18, 2010; (21) Eddie Lacy appears to have inside track as No. 3 Tide tailback, Dothan Eagle, August 11, 2010; (22) 'Bama Bound: Lacy signs letter of intent with Crimson Tide, Weekly Citizen (Louisiana), Feb. 5, 2009; (23) Griffin's Lacy named to 5A All-State first-team, Weekly Citizen, Dec. 30, 2008; (24) Lacy headlines all-District 6-5A team, Weekly Citizen, Dec. 16, 2008; .  Enough already to satisfy WP:GNG, and it's going to grow by leaps and bounds as the season gets underway starting on Saturday. Cbl62 (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Although there are several instances of non-trivial coverage, after reading through it all, he strikes me as a run-of-the mill backup running back for a major collegiate program. He doesn't appear to be a starter (he appears to be Richardson's backup), and in any event, he doesn't inherit notability from the team. cmadler (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As a sophomore, Lacy is the No. 2 running back on the No. 2 team in the United States. Alabama makes full use of two running backs in its offense.  Richardson was Alabama's No. 2 when he was a sophomore last year and still gained 700 yards.  The No. 2 running back in a program like Alabama's is a marquis player.  See, e.g., this article noting that Mark Ingram (Heisman Trophy winner) and Trent Richardson were Alabama's "one-two punch" in 2010 and then making this comparison: "But those close to the program think that the Richardson-Eddie Lacy duo may put up bigger and better numbers and go down as the best duo in recent history."  Aside from the favorable comparison, what really matters is the extent of coverage given to Lacy.  The coverage is clearly more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG and with the national coverage he also passes WP:NCOLLATH #3.  If a college athlete with this level of coverage can be deleted, then no college athlete is safe from the deletionists. Cbl62 (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sticking with my initial !vote on this one, on the basis of Run-of-the-mill, at least until/unless additional information or sources are brought forward. GNG says that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion". The fact that he plays for Alabama, the #2 team in the country is irrelevant (WP:NOTINHERITED). The fact that Richardson gained 700 yards in this position last year is also irrelevant to Lacy (WP:CRYSTAL). If Lacy does likewise this year, I may support article inclusion at the end of the season, but that hasn't happenned yet (WP:CRYSTAL). cmadler (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * College Football project can encourage using a player's respective team page or team season page for players who have not established notability outside of the team. If the player becomes notable, the existing text can then be used to create a new article. —Bagumba (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable college athlete. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Cbl. Plenty of non-trivial sources in there to help the subject pass WP:GNG.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  04:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per points raised by Cbl62. Altairisfar (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete His most notable WP:IMPACT to-date is being a backup running back and WP:INHERITED notability of playing for high profile team. He signed from high school (great!), he's injured this week (oh no!), his prospects this year look good (hooray!). WP:GNG only claims a presumption of notability, and allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." No prejudice to recreate if/when his story has enduring significance.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your approach pushes notability into a realm of complete subjectivity that allows people to vote to delete on the grounds of "I don't like it" even though a person has received massive news coverage. To delete an athlete who meets both WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH #3, there needs to be a very powerful rationale.  This level of coverage is truly extraordinary, the antithesis of "routine."  Also, your argument that a person must have "enduring" impact is problematic because (a) it's inconsistent with our principle that notability is not temporary, and (b) it requires us to speculate as to what will or won't "endure."  If a businessman or politician received this level of coverage, I don't think people would be voting to delete.  There should not be a different standard for athletes.  Cbl62 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone should be subjective, as we are all asked to use WP:COMMONSENSE and not blindly follow rules or count the number sources based on a word count. We discuss to form a consensus based on our subjective views to rule out minority opinions. There is no need to worry, as everyone is acting on good faith and it all works itself out.  It is incorrect to say the article meets GNG when—as Cmadler pointed out—the guidelines "establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion" and I noted in my !vote that GNG allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." Your interpretation of notability not being temporary is incorrect, as it specifically says "it does not need to have ongoing coverage" in reference to the length of coverage;  it does not say to ignore the lasting WP:IMPACT of the subject. WP:OTHERSTUFF existing about politicians is not a reason to lower standards for athletes.  Be bold and fix it. Finally your insinuation of editors using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a reason is inappropriate when explanation of policies that the article fails have been provided. —Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We disagree. Lacy passes the bar of both WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH #3.  Those are objective standards, as they should be.  Sometimes the extent of coverage is in a grey area, and we have to use some common sense, but the coverage here is massive.  In other cases,we remain free to ignore the rules and the presumptions of notability.  But there's no good reason to do that unless there's a compelling reason, and certainly not in a case where the person in question has had such massive coverage, including national media coverage.  Also, you misunderstood my point about businessmen and politicians.  My point is that there are some people who believe that Wikipedia's coverage of athletes is a bad thing, that athletics is trivial and of lesser importance than other endeavors.  Because of that personal distaste for sports, some would apply a higher notability standard to athletes than they would to businessmen and local politicians.  I strongly believe that such a subjective bias is inappropriate and that all biographies should be subject to the same WP:GNG standard.  If the level of coverage is good enough for a businessman to pass WP:GNG, then that same level of coverage should also be enough for an athlete.  That's all. Cbl62 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While we may disagree whether the subject is notable, let's not erroneously frame GNG as objective when it is not. As WP:What notability is not points out, GNG "contains four subjective words, specifically "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It advises us to "not seek to stifle debate simply by declaring that notability is an objective fact." It suggests "the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating specifically to that content and subject." While the sheer number of sources is sometimes indicative of notability, it should not be a substitute for assessing what the sources say to determine whether the subject earns consensus for notability. Its up to consensus to determine if a backup player on a high profile team who may break out in the future and be a star is notable enough for a standalone article. —Bagumba (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are relying on an essay that reflects that person's view, which is not policy, and which I believe is erroneous. Both WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH (the latter of which you continue to ignore) are attempts to set forth objective tests of notability.  We can determine objectively whether sources are reliable and whether they are independent.  On the issues of whether the coverage is "significant," there are close cases where we have to use our judgment (which does involve an element of subjectivity).  But there are many, many cases (as here where the coverage is so extensive) when it's pretty clear that the coverage is significant.  It is also true that, even where GNG is met, we have the ability to ignore the rules and try to rebut the presumption of notability.  But a presumption is intended to be difficult to overturn.  That's the very purpose of a presumption.  While subjectivity can play a part in a decision to ignore the rules and rebut the presumption, it's my view that those types of "opinion" based decisions to ignore the objective standards should be limited to extraordinary cases.  If you would like to debate these broader issues further, leave a note on my talk page.  Let's not clutter this AfD further with our differing views on this.  Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - A multitude of diverse, reliable sources (many listed above) establishing notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I don't think the coverage of this player rises past the level of ROUTINE everyday coverage of a player on a prominent team, and I don't think he meets Criteria #3 of WP:NCOLLATH. That said, though - it's a narrow thing, and I'm inclined to give this one a pass, as there will likely be additional coverage as the season progresses. Why bother deleting now, only to end up recreating the article when more sources are available? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per cmanler and Bagumba, sources read that Lacy is a run-of-the-mill athlete without impact. Not allowing the fear that he might be notable in the future be the reason to keep, nor am I moved by sources added about one game in 2011.  Peace to the presumption of notability camp, but overruling in this case. Norespectasip (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Very, very few college football players receive such extensive coverage in the mainstream media.  Lacy is by no means "run-of-the mill."  Nor is the coverage he has received.   I regularly vote to "Delete" college football articles on players who don't receive extensive coverage, and there are plenty of them.  The coverage afforded to Lacy is extraordinary and anything but "run-of-the-mill."  And WP:IMPACT is an essay (not policy) and is not a basis for deletion.  It also doesn't apply since it's point concerns "the notability of people who might be known for one event."  Athletes who have competed in multiple games and events have not been treated as "one-event" biographies.  Cbl62 (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, essay versus policy? The fifth pillar: Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Norespectasip (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that we can ignore the rules. I just don't see a good reason to do so in this case. Cbl62 (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

 *Keep - Per reliable sources listed above that verify notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC) You don't get to vote twice. Bgwhite (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Un-notable college player with coverage that doesn't rise above the routine. User:Cbl62 and I have come to an "agreement" to respectfully disagree on each others position on same type of coverage before. Bgwhite (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cbl62. Lots of independent coverage, and thus notability can be established. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 07:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable per sources. SL93 (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2011 (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.