Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kye Allums (3rd nomination)
- 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 speedy keep. no valid reason for re-nomination. WP:NAC is only an essay, while WP:BURO is solid policy. You want to change policy, don't do it by pointy AfDs. Scott Mac 17:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Kye Allums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural AfD. No sources in the article and the afd discussions don't reveal anything either. Incidentally it was non admin closed by a non admin with a recent history of these closes, and second without explanation but just an endorsement of DRV. All of that wrangling aside, there's still no assertion of notability outside of the simple reference that by itself fails the athlete criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just an inappropriate relisting per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kye Allums. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kye Allums (2nd nomination) and WP:BURO. The article was listed as recently as November 4th and that first listing was only closed this morning after 14 days of discussion.
- On the merits, there may be an argument for deletion on the basis of WP:BLP1E, particularly because it's a borderline stub. However that argument would need to be made. In my opinion the overall positive nature of the coverage suggests that this is not a matter for consideration of damage, and the overwhelming volume of coverage across the USA and even Canada weighs in favor of an article. So my feeling is that the article should be kept.
- If the article does not thrive a merge might be considered to an article about, say, gender and sport. I strongly suggest that the nominator take this matter to the appropriate place, which as he's been told repeatedly by experienced third parties is deletion review. This article has been up for discussion for two weeks and has so far only garnered "keep" opinions. --TS 12:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seldom seen so much wrangling about an article without actual substance by people that aren't actually in the article. The fact this article's been "nominated" 3 times has more to do with some weird wiki-political considerations than it does with any actual content. The first nom was inappropriately closed (by a user who's done a few of those), the second was similar, but by an admin who I believe is procedurally incorrect. All of that aside, all in all of this there's been no additional indication of notability for this athlete. Shadowjams (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already been told that the appropriate place to contest deletion discussions is deletion review. But I'm granting you the courtesy above of considering the merits of deletion, so please allow that I'm being constructive. --TS 12:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of how people behaved in the previous AfD's. This is not the right place for it. As such it needs to be closed and the opening user directed to the correct place for this. Barts1a (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seldom have I seen so many commenters afraid of a denovo assertion of an article's notability. Shadowjams (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of how people behaved in the previous AfD's. This is not the right place for it. As such it needs to be closed and the opening user directed to the correct place for this. Barts1a (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already been told that the appropriate place to contest deletion discussions is deletion review. But I'm granting you the courtesy above of considering the merits of deletion, so please allow that I'm being constructive. --TS 12:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seldom seen so much wrangling about an article without actual substance by people that aren't actually in the article. The fact this article's been "nominated" 3 times has more to do with some weird wiki-political considerations than it does with any actual content. The first nom was inappropriately closed (by a user who's done a few of those), the second was similar, but by an admin who I believe is procedurally incorrect. All of that aside, all in all of this there's been no additional indication of notability for this athlete. Shadowjams (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not pass WP:ATHLETE. The external link is to a YouTube video which may not comply with WP:YOUTUBE. This article strikes me as a WP:BLP1E. The coverage is directed toward the fact that the NCAA and George Washington University is allowing a biological woman to play on the women's basketball team before the player begins any gender transformation treatments. There is no in-depth coverage of the article subject beyond that basketball-playing role. I suspect that responsible news organizations are trying to respect the privacy of the subject which gives rise to focusing the coverage on the basketball team, and Wikipedia faces the same dilemma. I did find in depth treatment on outsports.com, but I don't think that that is an RS. I have not reviewed every possible news source, and if someone finds one that really does focus on Kye Allums and not the basketball eligibility, please add it to the article. Racepacket (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think Tony makes a persuasive argument and it is clear that he has a lot of experience in this area so we should listen to what he has to say. --Sherilyn69 (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2010 (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.