Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Baker (gridiron football)


 * 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.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 15:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Lewis Baker (gridiron football)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources for this WP:BLP, does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON as the United Football League (2009–2012) was not a top-tier professional league and there does not appear to be anything notable about his college career. Contested WP:PROD J04n(talk page) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, not going to do an in-depth search now, but I found this with a brief search on Newspapers.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards a Weak Keep, after my search also turned up this from the Norman Transcript and this from Tulsa World, which is enough to meet GNG in my opinion, though not by much. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I also see an article titled "U. Oklahoma: Baker getting an unexpected chance to play" from America's Intelligence Wire here but can't find how to get the text. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per the sources from BeanieFan. Players from the UFL occupy kind of a notability gray area. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 00:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would say the Daily Oklahoman is probably SIGCOV, but the Norman and Tulsa articles are essentially interviews (most of the content is quotes) and therefore not independent. If another article like the first turns up that might be more suggestive of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, I'm not sure if any of the found sources rise to the level of significant coverage but kudos to BeanieFan11 for greatly improving the page. J04n(talk page) 14:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. I'm finding WP:SIGCOV in the Norman, Tulsa, and Oklahoma City papers. I agree with JoelleJay that (1) this (part 1/part 2) is clearly SIGCOV. The following IMO also qualify as SIGCOV: (2) this, (3) this, (4) this, and (5) this. NewsLibrary.com also turns up the following from Tulsa World (the latter two of which require fee): (6) "Baker's backers", Tulsa World, 12/26/07 (1,459 words); (7) "Baker-mania runs wild", Tulsa World, 11/29/07 (688 words), (8) "Baker in position to play early", Tulsa World, 9/19/03 (642 words).Cbl62 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Oklahoman article (2) is a reprint of the first Daily Oklahoman (1) one. The second D Ok (3) has way too many quotes for me to be comfortable calling it independent (I have the same reservations about (1)). (4) Is ok but also suffers from an abundance of non-independent quotes and very little secondary analysis. (5) has almost zero coverage of Baker and is mostly quotes from him and his coach. (6) Is the same as the third source from BeanieFan; how many words aren't in quotes -- i.e. how much is secondary commentary by an independent reporter? JoelleJay (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eddy, Cbl62 and BeanieFan11. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per WP:PROD, a "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. [...] PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." All bold in this quote is in the source. Objectively, this nomination does not look uncontroversial at all so the subject should not have been prodded in the first place. Next it was nominated. Per referencing above, it should not be deleted either. Please use the correct procedures to nominate articles, everyone, and please think twice. Articles that do not meet the professional standard, often still meet the WP:GNG. Less nominations means more time for work in the article space. gidonb (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2021 (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.