Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cam Williams

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 delete. Moving past the SNG v GNG debate, the primary point of difference in the views around whether the coverage in the sources provided is routine or not (for GNG). I assess the consensus on this issue as being to delete the article. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Cam Williams

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Cam Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBASEBALL, has not played beyond college level WWGB (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep A short search turned up multiple articles that go towards WP:GNG. [1][2][3] Alvaldi (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Those articles are all about college baseball, which fails WP:NBASEBALL. If someone had three articles about playing Little League, that would not entitle them to an article. WWGB (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:NBASEBALL does not supersede WP:GNG, that is made crystal clear in the FAQ on the top of WP:NSPORT which WP:NBASEBALL is a part of.

Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.)

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)

Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?
A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.)

To pass WP:GNG, the subject has to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So if a number of national or major state news publications write a number (GNG only says multiple) of indepth articles on a baseball player, young or old, amateur or professional, then there is a good chance that he passes the notable criteria for a stand-alone article. Alvaldi (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Articles provided by Alvaldi are nowhere near enough to pass GNG.-- Yankees10 22:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delete We could find this many articles on many high school players. It is a misapplication of GNG to think it is passed here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Alvaldi is of course completely correct, as he has demonstrated, that meeting GNG is sufficient. Also, it matters not a whit what the articles are about - they could be about t-ball. GNG doesn't care. So we don't care. If they are GNG worthy, so is the subject. I just, same as yankees, don't see these articles as meeting GNG. But those who hang their hat on this other, faulty, argument are incorrect in their assertions. 2603:7000:2143:8500:643C:473C:C984:2D47 (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - the basketball project has been alerted, but that I think should be the baseball project.2603:7000:2143:8500:643C:473C:C984:2D47 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would note that one of the "delete" arguments is actually presents arguments for "keep."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Rather non-stellar career in college baseball, not in the Majors yet. Any putz can bat .289. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Even Tony Gwynn managed that, in his rookie season. 2603:7000:2143:8500:643C:473C:C984:2D47 (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Except Gwynn did it as 22 year old major league rookie while Williams was 23 and playing college baseball. It was the only season Gwynn's BA was below .300 in his 20 years in MLB. Papaursa (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete He fails to meet WP:NBASE or WP:NCOLLATH. The coverage also fails to meet WP:GNG. The SI article is routine sports reporting, while burntorangenation.com and Longhorns Wire are definitely not independent since he was playing for the U. of Texas. The San Antonio Express article is not really out of the ordinary coverage for a player on the Texas baseball team. There's certainly nothing to show he's WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Meets GNG on the basis of the SI and SA Express articles, and once GNG is met NBASE does not matter. The argument that those two sources are too routine (regardless of whether that is true or not, which is highly subjective) is a misapplication of policy; nowhere does GNG discount routine coverage. Rather, WP:ROUTINE is part of WP:NEVENTS and says that an event might not merit an article even if it meets GNG. An event notability guideline should not be applied to a biography. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The "SI article" is coverage of one game and is part of its "Fan Nation-Longhorns Country" section. That's not significant coverage. Pretty much every athlete who ever played a high school sport has been mentioned in an article on a game and there's no way they're all WP notable. It's highly debatable that even two good sources are enough to meet WP:GNG and these are not that good. Papaursa (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. A couple of profiles and a game recap are not significant coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:25, 22 July 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.