Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendall Gaskins


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Kendall Gaskins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article makes no assertion of notability. Kendall Gaskins was an undrafted free agent who was released before playing a single snap of professional football. That's not enough to satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON and there is no non-trivial coverage. There are dozens of such prospective NFL players every year and they aren't notable for being on the preseason team. Further, as an article about a player not in the news (because he's not playing) it's not being updated. At the time I encountered the article on October 23 it still claimed he played for Buffalo, even though he'd been released nearly two months ago. After fixing the references I proposed the article for deletion; the article's author removed the PROD tag on October 29 with a minor edit (no edit summary). That's his right but it's unhelpful. In sum, it's a non-notable stub with no prospect of expansion. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and any secondary coverage I can find seems to be WP:ROUTINE Sulfurboy (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that WP:GRIDIRON is not met, but I believe the subject passes WP:GNG due to the significant amount of coverage for his college career found here. Some of it is routine box scores, but many of them provide much more detail and clearly are beyond the scope of WP:ROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been reading through these results and most really are just the variety of "Gaskins ran for an 11-yard TD" or "Gaskins punched it in" which I'd expect from any write-up. What I'm looking for is an article that actually discusses Gaskins. Here's on about him being named Second Team All-CAA, which isn't all that impressive. That being said, he's bouncing around practice squads again (just released by the Titans, NYG is giving him a look). Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Even that is beyond the scope of WP:ROUTINE. It's clearly more than just sports scores, plus there is a lot of coverage.  In this ESPN article, he's the lead mention in the article.  Other examples are Gaskins helps Richmond rout Gardner-Webb 41-8 and Gaskins leads Richmond past William & Mary 17-10 and Gaskins, unbeaten Richmond rally past Towson 42-14 from The Sporting News.--Paul McDonald (talk)
 * That's still just game coverage though. None of these articles are about him; they're recaps of games in which he's played a role. I don't think that's the standard we're supposed to apply. Put another way, there's nothing we can take from these articles to improve our article, save that he played in these football games and scored touchdowns. He's a running back; we'd expect him to do so. Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's far above routine sports coverage. When the subject's name is in the title, it's clearly not routine.   Besides, it's far and away above routine reporting of sports scores.  See essay WP:NOTROUTINE for more info.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That definition of routine doesn't take into the fact that every Division I football game gets recapped at this point. If every game is recapped, with text, then that's by definition routine. Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Every United States Presidential Election is recapped in print too. By your definition, that's routine.  I could argue that every noteworthy event gets routine news coverage.  Should we delete everything on Wikipedia?  "Too much news coverage" is generally used to say a subject is notable, not that it is not notable.  Wikipedia is not about nothing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Gaskins has been in the news quite recently for tryouts with the GIants and Titans (where he was briefly on the practice squad). I think it's too soon for deletion. Let's see how things play out. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Being invited to tryouts with a bunch of others does not show notability--hundreds try out every year for each NFL team.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 17 November 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.