Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Baltz


 * 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. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Travis Baltz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Baltz never actually played in a game for an NFL team. His college career was not of a significant enough level for him to pass the notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. I was somewhat intrigued by the external links, as bio pieces in papers like The Washington Times would possibly meet WP:GNG if they were substantial and went beyond coverage of the team, but those links are dead and we can't guess at sources we don't have in front of us. No evidence of notability as per WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NGRIDIRON, or GNG. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I found the links earlier. Here they are just for the record.  . WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Baltz was a first-team All-ACC punter in 2008 (here), a freshman All-American in 2007, a four-time academic All-ACC player (here and here) and was the subject of significant, non-routine coverage in multiple reliable sources such that he passes muster under WP:GNG.  Examples of the significant coverage include the following: (1) "Anthony Wayne's Baltz gets kick out of life", Toledo Blade, Oct. 12, 2006; (2) "Anthony Wayne alum a top punter nationally, Toledo Blade, Nov. 6, 2008; (3) "Maryland's Travis Baltz talks about the lonely life of a kicker", "The Washington Post", Dec. 10, 2010; (3) "Travis Baltz Pulling Triple-Duty, May Just Take All Three Jobs", Sept. 13, 2010, SBNation; (4) "Baltz steady under pressure, The Diamondback, Oct 17, 2007; (5) "Freshman Baltz kicks for two spots", The Washington Times, April 18, 2007. Cbl62 (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Commenting on the sources provided above: The awards don't reach the level required by WP:NCOLLATH, so they only matter so far as they got him significant coverage that could allow him to pass WP:GNG. A small hometown paper running a story on him doesn't count for much; it's expected even for players that never amount to all that much in college. As such, I don't put much stock in 1 or 2. The Washington Post article numbered 3 (there were two 3s) is just a video, not an article, and it's filed under "voices.washingtonpost.com". If you go directly to that domain, you discover that's where they host their blogs, so no credit there – not a reliable source. SB Nation hosts blogs which aren't considered reliable, per multiple past discussions at WP:RS/N, so there goes the second #3. The Diamondback is the University of Maryland's student newspaper, so it's hardly independent. That leaves the Washington Times piece, which is substantial coverage. The Washington Times is local to the University of Maryland, so it's just regional coverage of a college athlete by the local regional paper. I don't think that passes GNG. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no stake in the article, but I think you're misconstruing the sources here. First, the Toledo Blade is not a "small hometown" newspaper as you call it; to the contrary, it is a respected, Pulitzer Prize-winning, metropolitan daily newspaper.  The articles in the Blade plainly represent significant coverage in a reliable source. Second, The Washington Times is also a reliable source (another metropolitan daily), and the profile therein is significant coverage. With the depth of significant coverage in the Blade and the The Washington Times, the requirement of GNG is satisfied IMO.  The others are gravy but further support the conclusion.  As a further example, your attempt to discredit the Washington Post piece is flawed.  Blogs are not per se unreliable. To the contrary, you have to look at the nature and expertise of the blogger. See WP:BLPSPS and Reliable source examples.  In this case, WaPo is one of the most respected daily papers in the world, and the video was a companion piece to an in depth feature article about kickers here. WaPo's coverage of Baltz further supports his notability.  As for the in depth profile of Baltz in The Diamondback, I believe it fair to include because the Diamondback is, as reflected on its masthead (and in the text of the wiki article), an "independent" newspaper.  As for SB Nation, your point may be well taken, but could you provide a link to the discussion holding it to be unreliable? I had thought it depended on whether or not the writer was an SB Nation staff writer and whether the piece was subject to editorial review. Cbl62 (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep seems to me to pass WP:GNG based on the sources provided. I am interested in the outcome of the SB Nation discussion, but I don't believe that would change my position.  Washington Times and Toledo Blade are sufficient.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - barely clears the GNG bar with the Washington Times and Toledo Blade articles, which are reliable sources and far more than local hometown newsletters carrying a "local boy makes good" story. Rlendog (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG with coverage in multiple sources as mentioned above. Smartyllama (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2016 (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.