Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarrod Polson


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 16:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Jarrod Polson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is a college basketball player who does not meet WP:NCOLLATH - has not won any major awards or hold any records. He has not appeared in repeated, independent, significant coverage beyond game reports and as such does not pass WP:GNG Rikster2 (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Secondary guidelines such as Notability (sports) are only relevant if the topic doesn't meet WP:GNG but the topic is notable anyway, so I have not reviewed WP:Notability (sports).  In this case, the first five links of the Google news link provide Polson as the headline of the article and show a topic that has received attention from the world at large over a period of time.       These sources satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:BLP, and is just the beginning of the list.  Perhaps there is a sense of objection that Polson is not one of the five starters, but that would be an argument to merge a wp:notable topic, not to delete it.  In this case, the topic received in-depth media attention starting with his junior year in high school, and unusual attention for being a UK walk-on that quickly earned a UK scholarship, and these are factors that merit individual coverage.  IMO, the article would be improved with some editing so as to focus on the topic, as the accomplishments of his teams are secondary. Unscintillating (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * comment You do realize that three of those come from one source (counts as one, not multiple) and the other aren't particularly independent - the school's athletic site and "Lost Lettermen" which is not a real news source, right? By that criteria literally every scholarship player on a major conference team would be notable.  polson's coverage comes from him being a bit player on one of the most heavily covered programs in the US. Rikster2 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So you really want to wonder if the first five sources on the Google News link create a notability standard for "every scholarship player on a major conference team"? I think you are still working the non-starter aspect of this topic.  If you didn't like a non-starter having a stand-alone article, you could have found or created a suitable topic to which to merge the topic instead of bringing this case to AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally don't agree with redirecting non-notable individuals to associated topics because I think it misleads readers using dynamic search or who are trying to Wikilink names in other articles. That's why I didn't suggest something that isn't compulsory. If you want to suggest that as an outcome, be my guest. Rikster2 (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But I wasn't talking about redirecting a non-notable topic, I was talking about redirecting a notable topic. And I've already given factors that favor keeping this as a stand alone article.  I don't see you dispute that the first five sources in the News link minimally suffice for WP:GNG.  So what notability argument are you making?  Are you claiming WP:N's "not worthy of notice", which trumps WP:GNG?  Are you perhaps trying to make a WP:NOT argument and calling it "notability"?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as the comment about redirects for non-notable topics, what exactly do you mean by "dynamic search". How does the Wikilink to Thomas Mantell at Franklin, KY mislead readers?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment It's an odd criteria that says people who bounce a leather object up and down a court for a university are notable while most of the University's professors are not. This article is double the length of the article for the UofK president, Eli Capilouto. Ah well, nothing to see here. Praemonitus (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Praemonitus, while I sympathize with your perspective about the relative priorities of society regarding academics and athletics, let us recognize that Wikipedia is a volunteer organization and most of us edit those articles in which we have the greatest personal interest. Nothing is stopping anyone from expanding articles about the University of Kentucky's presidents and faculty members.  There are examples of in-depth biographies of university presidents, some of which are even Good Articles and Feature Articles (see, e.g., Andrew Sledd and John Tigert).  It's all a matter of our personal priorities in editing.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF requires that a Professor have significant credentials and/or accomplishments relative to their peers before they are recognized as notable. Most such are only earned late in a person's career. For the most part, WP:ATHLETE requires an athlete to be paid to play in a professional game. These are not the same, and I suspect it is why Wikipedia has such an enormous number of articles about athletes of every stripe. Sorry, but this seems like an imbalance. But no matter. Praemonitus (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep . Neutral for now .  No, the subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines of WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NBASKETBALL.  Yes, the subject does satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, as demonstrated by the coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per  Jrcla's  Unscintillating's first, second and fifth sources linked above.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Temporarily striking my !vote until I can review further and conduct independent Google News and Google News Archive searches. I'm embarrassed that I did not notice that Unscintillating's first, second and fifth sources were all from the same newspaper (Lexington Herald Leader), and therefore only count as a single source per WP:GNG.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See new "keep" comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually hadn't commented on this AfD, although I frequently do on basketball-related AfDs, so I understand why you probably thought it was me. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, Jrcla. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First, second and fourth source count as one per GNG since its all from the paper that covers every detail of UK and their recruits - even the marginal ones like Polson's who is essentially being forced off he team to open a scholarship for next year. Rikster2 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rikster, you are, of course, correct regarding multiple articles from the same source counting as a single source per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that "sources" in WP:GNG means at least two? Unscintillating (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment ESPN commentators made these statements about Polson in the loss to Robert Morris on 19 March 2013:
 * "He's been their toughest playmaker so far."
 * "Archie Goodwin and Polson, the two most consistent guys..."
 * "Terrific play by Polson, the spin through traffic. ...[he] has been able to make plays better than anyone else."
 * "Polson continues to be the guy that is holding them in this game."
 * A Lexington Herald writer also writing about the Robert Morris game says, "Jarrod Polson, who bookended the season with big performances in the opener against Maryland and then here Tuesday night, and Archie Goodwin led an improbable UK rally."
 * I added the following two references to the article:


 * Unscintillating (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Unscintillating, game reports are expressly not usuable to establish GNG. I would particularly not try to use comments of broadcasters reacting to the game they are calling to establish GNG because their job is to comment about what is happening on the court at that moment. Look, I still haven't seen continued independent coverage for Polson. This reminds me of the AfD discussion for Justin Watts of UNC from a couple years ago. Very similar cases - not notable except to their school fanbase. Rikster2 (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rikster2, After reading my last post, you could have withdrawn your nomination assertion that Polson did not hold any records. We know from the article edit history that at 2013-03-17T00:27:43‎ you state, "Will AfD when I have more time", and then at 2013-03-17T00:37:46 you state, "Afd: Nominated for deletion".  That is ten minutes and 3 seconds spent preparing this nomination.  When you posted your nomination, you were advised, "Welcome to the deletion discussion for the selected article...discussion guidelines are available."  One of the discussion guidelines is, ;D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability:


 * 1) The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform.
 * 2) [removed]
 * 3) If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources...
 * FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rikster2, You have not answered my questions as to the nature of your notability argument, but your argument seems partly to be based on the "not worthy of notice" clause of WP:N, which can be argued even if the topic passes WP:GNG. You've stated a notability argument, "game reports are expressly not usuable  [sic] to establish GNG", which is partially a red herring because I made no such claim.  Regarding the term "game reports", WP:GNG is the general notability guide, and doesn't get down into details such as "game reports".  As described by the nutshell, a notable topic is one that has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time".  Our article identifies ESPN as "an American global cable television network".  ESPN has provided "significant attention by the world at large" giving in-depth attention to the topic.  Whether or not it satisfies "sufficiently", no, not by itself, but the material is still adding to the wp:notability of the topic.  Viewers of the ESPN broadcast may look to Wikipedia to find out more about Jarrod Polson.  The second argument is, "I...haven't seen continued" coverage for Polson.  The term "continued" is part of the WP:N nutshell, and is not "continued" but "over a period of time".  I already stated in my !vote that the first five sources in the Google news archive show a topic that has received attention over a period of time.  The word echoes your opening nomination, which uses the word "repeated", as if such comes from a notability guideline.  IMO the article we have now will serve the encyclopedia far into the future.  IMO the effect of deleting this article is to drive off editors, whether or not the editors are fans; and undermine our guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - to put Polson's article in perspective. Tonight I was updating the NCAA Tournament single game records article to add Russ Smith (who is a Sporting News 3rd Team All-American) for tying the single game steals record and found out that there is NO article about Smith on Wikipedia.  Maybe as CBB editors we should spend some effort documenting someone who meets WP:NCOLLATH - HAS  won major awards and holds records.  And has appeared in repeated, independent, significant coverage beyond game reports and as such does pass WP:GNG .  And less time trying to justify someone who only UK fans think meets WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG dr. knipple (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete notability guidelines for college athletes require that they are extraordinary (my word) and go beyond "mentions in game summaries" (not my phrase). This subject is not there by a wide margin. J04n(talk page) 16:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have now done my own full review of the available sources.  Pursuant to the general notability guidelines stated at WP:GNG, I cite the following as multiple, independent, reliable sources: Central Kentucky News (10/1/2012), Lexington Herald-Leader (10/10/2012), Central Kentucky News (10/19/2012), NBC Sports (11/10/2012), ESPN (11/10/2012), Sports Illustrated (11/10/2012), Lexington Herald-Leader (11/25/2012), Lexington Herald-Leader (2/9/2013).  I have excluded recruiting services, fanblogs, trivial references, and routine game coverage.  Notwithstanding my own doubts about whether the subject is "encyclopedic" or not, it appears that he has received substantial ink from Kentucky newspapers and national sports media.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2013 (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.