Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiquitta Tobar


 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 10:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Whiquitta Tobar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not sure the college career is enough for notabiity. If so, the article should be restricted to that, because nothing else is.  DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the college career is enough for notability and these are quality articles. Moreover, her community service awards and life were also not only mentioned but covered in these sources. See: showing sheer number of articles on her college career Discussing early life too Alabama A&M basketball: Tobar up for yet another prestigious honor (college career). Sources on post college: Extensive discussion of post-college community service and social justice life Mention of Tobar's law school career --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly meets qualification for inclusion based on WP:NCOLLATH because she has "been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries." --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. If she's notable as an athlete, that's what the article should be about--trying to iuse it as a springboard to write about her non-notable further career is can look like promotionalism   DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the bolding intentional? What are you responding to? Shouldn't you add to your original nomination.--JumpLike23 (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I adjusted the emphasis, and the wording. Sorry about that.  DGG ( talk ) 13:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes GNG based on multiple instances of substantial coverage in independently published sources of presumed reliability. A clear and obvious sports keep does not preclude other biographical coverage in the same piece. This series of several nominations of a single creator by the same nominator, all of which seem to easily meet GNG based upon footnotes showing in the piece, strike me as misguided misinterpretations of sourcing guidelines and AfD tradition at best, abusive harassment at worst. Knock it the hell off. Carrite (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly meets GNG, WP:NCOLLATH--as discussed above, and WP:ANYBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" which she meets because she the player of year in the SAC, D1.--JumpLike23 (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets GNG as well as NCOLLATH. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 14:17, 4 October 2015 (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.