Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Freeman

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. J04n(talk page) 13:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Questionable notability, but even if marginally passing NSPORTS, this is a predominantly negative BLP issue that leads me to think it's better to err on the side of deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Medalist in notable athletic competition. --bender235 (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article gives undue weight, no need to have what amounts to an attack ad on a minor living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NTRACK (1) by competing at 2009 World Championships in Athletics – Men's hammer throw. Appears to also meet WP:NTRACK (5) since in 2010 he won national title (see [1]) and IAAF says he was ranked number 31. Also helps that he won Gatorade Player of the Year awards#Track & Field, giving weight towards WP:NHSPHSATH. In view of everything given, keep. RonSigPi (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wanted to comment on what User:Rhododendrites said in the nom. For your comment about marginally passing NSPORTS, I don't think that is the case since it is passed at least two separate and distinct ways (WP:NTRACK 1 and 5). Further, I don't think it matters if it marginally passes - we have bright line rules for a reason. I don't know if I have ever seen the opposite (e.g., a player playing 198 games for the American Hockey League, where 200 would pass WP:NHOCKEY, and editors agreeing that since the subject marginally misses we should just keep anyways). The community of editors have selected these as standards and we should not get into the practice of knocking the standards by adding our subjective views, such as something being marginal. For your second point, that it is a negative BLP, I always think it is better to try to clean up than to have the err side of caution be delete. Under that logic, any controversial subject could be deleted if it gets too negative. Better to fix than just delete. RonSigPi (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have said "even if marginally notable". We don't have bright lines, though. At least not in that sense. If someone passes an NSPORTS criterion that doesn't mean they're automatically considered notable regardless of the sourcing that exists; it means sources likely exist which would show notability. When I say marginal I mean in the sense of the number of sources that provide significant coverage of this person, not a numeric goal. I should have been more clear. Even if found to be notable, that doesn't necessarily mean someone should have a stand-alone article (i.e. if there's little content to be written and the person can just be mentioned in another article -- which is the case here). The coverage issue leads into the second point. If there's not much material on which to base an article, but there is material that's negative, it would be an NPOV issue to simply remove the negative, but a BLP issue to have a biography that's heavily negative. To me, we would need to see significant coverage in reliable sources with enough breadth and depth that it outweighs the negative coverage. It's unclear to me that exists. When dealing with matters of BLP like this, of course, it can come down to subjective judgment, to be sure. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are sources that can be used to expand the article. Subuey (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I have added a source for his appearing at the 2009 world outdoor championships, which is enough to meet WP:NTRACK. Sandals1 (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2017 (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.