Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff Abrams

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Abrams

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

Not Notable imho. Did not win any Jr Slam, never on the main tour (only tiny future tournaments), no davis cup, etc... Does not meet the extremely generous Tennis project guidelines for notability nor ntennis. Was he in some news papers... sure. Almost all future players get some coverage in their local papers, but not enough to meet gng. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, Speedy Keep, Snow Keep. Clearly meets wp:GNG. And meeting GNG is certainly sufficient for meeting our notability standards. "Being in some newspapers" is the core of GNG -- when there is significant coverage in reliable sources, that's when we consider a person notable. Here, there are hundreds of newspaper articles that cover him. A good number of articles devoted to covering him. See the articles found here and here. Including articles devoted to him, such as "ABRAMS MAKING SHORT WORK OF 14S", "ABRAMS STUNS TOP PAC-10 SEED", "ABRAMS DOMINATES BRILL IN BOYS` TITLE MATCH", "He's a big fish in a big pond; Geoff Abrams' steady improvement ranks him among best 4-year players in Stanford history" "Stanford's Abrams Is Historic", "ABRAMS PASSES FINAL EXAM", "Abrams Falls in Semifinals", "Abrams Still Has Moore's Number", "Abrams Easily Wins 16 Singles Title at Ojai", Abrams retires from pro tennis circuit", "Tournament Has Abrams Coming Back for More", "Newport Harbor's Abrams Stays Loose to Win Title", etc.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - the nomination bases notability upon subjective personal opinion to a degree, and then conflates this opinion into an argument that the subject does not pass WP:NTENNIS or Wikipedia's General notability guideline. However, per the sources presented above by User:Epeefleche, the subject clearly passes WP:BASIC. Furthermore, media coverage of the subject is much more than local, with coverage in major U.S. newspapers such as The Los Angeles Times. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree on this assessment of subjectivity. This does not pass Tennis Project Notability Guidelines nor NSPORT. The Ojai tournament covered by the LA Times for 16 year old players happens multiple time per year. Nothing special here as this quality of player happens a lot. We may disagree on whether this person has general notability... that happens all the time at wikipedia... but it is not subjective based on wikipedia rules of protocol. I don't think this tennis player (which is the only reason he is being talked about here), per wiki notability, is notable for tennis at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck -- are you aware that if this meets wp:GNG, we don't even have to consider whether it meets any other guideline? Game over?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Game over? What's that supposed to mean? It's subjective that it meets GNG. I don't think it does since those items are done all the time on thousands of minimal tennis players. I see these uploads all the time and most of the time I get easy agreement...but not always. Sure, 100 editors could comment here and it could go your way, but then again it might not. I'm willing to wait and see what happens over the course of a week or so and see how many editors want 1000's of these type articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the worst AfDs I've seen in years from an editor with more than 10,000 edits. WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources ... it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article...." It goes on to say: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." How can you possibly not view what you have been pointed to as satisfying GNG?

In fact -- it appears that you are rejecting GNG. Asserting that despite the overwhelming indicated RS coverage, including articles devoted to the subject, we should ignore GNG because "those items are done all the time on thousands of minimal tennis players." You don't get it -- GNG is the primary rule of notability. We don't second-guess it, and ignore it, because in our POV we think it is too broad, because it would include people who we in our POV believe are "minimal." For WP's purposes they are not "minimal." They are notable. Because they meet GNG.

That's why it's game over. End of story. Because it meets GNG. And your personal POV that GNG should not be followed where you find the person to be "minimal" is not how the Project -- by consensus -- works.

That why we don't even have to discuss your view that an individual who was US champion in junior singles, junior doubles, and college team, as well as ranked # 1 in the US in junior singles, junior doubles, and college doubles, is "minimal." Because its irrelevant. He meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness... someone needs some nice pills. As I said I'm willing to see what happens here, however lets get some facts straight. You mentioned Junior singles, junior doubles and #1 ranking in junior singles. That's not true. The ITF has their junior circuit and it doesn't say any of those things... so you are not telling the truth and making him appear better than he is. There are juniors and then there are junior boys of different ages and categories. At the Junior level ITF he reached a singles high ranking of 30 and a doubles high ranking of 27. At that junior tennis level he was 34-25 in singles, and 38-22 in doubles. There are thousands of players with this type of record. So please if you do need to go off topic and simply bash someone, get the facts straight. Your rampage is a bit much. As a tennis player this guy is a nobody. As for general notability... I leave that for others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to miss the point. He meets GNG. That is what matters. Once he meets GNG, with robust RS coverage, it matters not a whit what Fyunck thinks as to whether GNG is a good guideline, or the newspapers should have written those articles. He clearly meets the notability standard. End of story.

That's why it doesn't even matter, though for the record to clarify what junior means in this context, and to show the absurdity of your merit-less assertion that "Nothing special here as this quality of player happens a lot", he was

ranked # 1 in the U.S. in the Boys 14s singles
ranked # 1 in doubles in the USTA Boys' 16 rankings
the Boys 16 Doubles National Champion, with Michael Russell
the USTA National Indoor 18 Champion
competed in the 1996 juniors in the U.S. Open, French Open, and at Wimbledon
had a 26–0 record in singles in 1998, the best in Stanford men's tennis history
an All-American in singles and doubles
part of the # 1-ranked college doubles team in the nation, his senior year of college
the 8th-ranked college player in the U.S. in singles, his senior year of college
his college team won the NCAA national championship his freshman, sophomore, and senior years.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe little-leaguers are next up for articles. I see kids tossing no-hitters on tv which is covered in the press yet no article for the kid. Maybe these things are notable these days and wiki will soon see them as GNG. As I said... get your terms correct, try not to fabricate what I think, and relax. If it's an unbelievable slam dunk as you say, then there won't be anyone else saying to delete this... and no worries. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply a waste of the Project's resources -- our time -- for you to nomnate an article that clearly meets GNG. If you dislike GNG, go ahead and get consensus to change it. But please don't waste our time by nominating articles that clearly meet GNG, because you have a personal standard that says that significant coverage in reliable sources (which is indubitably what we have here) is not in your personal view sufficient ... whatever GNG says.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly have a difference of opinion, but you won't see me getting personal and making things up about you as you are doing to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Boys, boys....there is no need to argue amongst yourselves. Make a well thought out argument and let it stand. Others will see it for what it is and take it on its merits. Bickering doesn't help either case, and it also is a waste of the project's time, for thoughtful editors and certainly the closer will feel the need to read all of it. That being said...
Keep Meets GNG, meets WP:NCOLLATH. I am kinda biased on the importance of it as a former Kalamazoo resident, but the National Junior and Boys Tennis Tournament is a pretty big deal. Winning that (and it being covered by the media, which of course it is) is a fair indication of notability in and of itself. John from Idegon (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.