Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Tavarez

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. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Tavarez

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

Certainly doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, probably fails WP:ENT, so no notability. No references or third-party sources provided for this bio, either. — Timneu22 · talk 16:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Borderline notable per WP:ENT (criterion 1). He's had a number of credited roles and is a leading player in two pieces currently in production. It's a bit of crystal balling, but once those are released he'll more easily pass WP:ENT. Here's some independent news coverage: [1]. Pburka (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rivals.com link and twitter/facebook links weren't valid. I've removed them. Further, the Disney news link just lists his name as having starred in this thing, it's trivial coverage. There does not seem to be any substantial independent coverage on this person. — Timneu22 · talk 19:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the link I provided? Pburka (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  I think more is needed than that. Anyone can get in a single local newspaper or "AMNews" for something. This isn't really substantial coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 00:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  It's certainly substantial. Substantial refers to the depth of coverage. The article I found is not a passing, trivial reference to the subject; it's 500+ words all about Chris Tavarez in The Advocate-Messenger, a notable daily newspaper. The Scout.com article found by Lila Brown also helps establish notability, and it appears to be from a source associated with Fox Sports. Pburka (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about this link [2] Lila Brown (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC) For another movie credit [3] Lila Brown (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Scout site looks like a blog to me (not admissible), and the Blockbuster site is a video sales/rental site (not RS).-I think BLP is quite clear on the quality of sources.-Kudpung (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know there is no Wikipedia policy making blogs inadmissible. Scout.com appears to be a commercial blog associated with, or owned by, Fox Sports. Every indication is that the writers are professional sports journalists. I see no reason why the blog format should make it any less reliable. Pburka (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is the second reference? (http://www.tbs.com/video/index.jsp?cid=187129) How does this help anything? Really, the article needs to make up its mind: is this an actor or an athlete? The person absolutely fails WP:ATHLETE and as such I don't think this information should exist. — Timneu22 · talk 10:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure how this is relevant to my comment. Editors have removed reliable sources from this article on the tenuous assertion that blogs are de facto inadmissible. This directly contradicts the guidance from WP:RS which states that blogs from reliable news sources are themselves reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, why can't he be both an actor and an athlete? [4] see Chris Tavarez for an actor credit already listed on Wikipedia. Another wikipedia article [5] Lila Brown (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this person isn't notable for either, but you're trying to add them up to equal notability. He could be both an actor and an athlete, but he seems to fail both. FYI: Lila Brown has no edits but this page and the article. — Timneu22 · talk 15:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The fact that a person's name is mentioned on another Wikipedia is not a reference within the meaning of WP:RS, and cannot be used. One of the bare mentions of the name is a red link.--Kudpung (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ not necessarily because of notability, but because the article is so poorly written that I believe it harms Wikipedia's credibility. I'm not particularly enthusiastic myself about fixing it... but then once it's fixed to be quality content, then we can look at notability and reliable sources. There's a lot to overcome here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Poor quality is not a valid reason to delete an article. Pburka (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response it is if it is so poorly written that it reflects bad on Wikipedia, and I believe that is the case with this article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Please provide a link to a Wikipedia policy which supports deletion of poorly written articles. For a list of commonly accepted reasons to delete articles see WP:DEL#REASON. Pburka (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I believe you've made the point; it would be better to focus your energies on fixing this request, however. — Timneu22 · talk 22:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, my energy would be better used focusing on an article where I have enthusiam to research. Someone else who has enthusiam to fix this article can go ahead. If and when they do, I'll happily take a second look.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link from an interview on a website as a reference. [6] Lila Brown (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:RELISTINGISEVIL no changes have been made, it's a clear-cut delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One reference is self-published, the other is about his athlete career. Half the article is devoted to who found his talent per se. The rewrite by pburka was good though, although I'm not sure if it's enough to save the article, the real sources are about his high school football carrier and some are questionable. Ryan Norton 02:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is just enough coverage here to establish notability (I have added another reference). Davewild (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree. I just added another link as well. Lila Brown (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the citations can be verified (though sources are of questionable reliability), he simply doesn't pas WP:ATHLETE or WP:ENT. Yet. Give the kid 5 years. --Whoosit (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the substantial coverage in several reliable sources. See this article in the Atlanta Inquirer, this news coverage in CBS Atlanta, and this article from The Advocate-Messenger. These three sources provide nontrivial coverage of the subject.
Whoosit (talk · contribs) is wrong that Chris Tavarez fails WP:ATHLETE. Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Basic criteria says, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published, non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
Because Christopher Tavarez has been the subject of multiple published, non-trivial reliable sources, he passes WP:ATHLETE, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Change position Additional sources look good to me. Doesn't look like too interesting of an article to me, but "interesting" and "notability" are two separate subjects.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:58, 3 August 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.