From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
 |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
|
:*:::I agree that the depth of independent coverage could be improved, but in my view Kurland still meets the notability guidelines. I’ve found [https://www.si.com/college/florida/baseball/cade-kurland-leadership-consistent-force-in-chaotic-offseason-gators-baseball-01ka20dm9ry0 this] article from Sports Illustrated which I feel passes significant coverage. It goes beyond routine reporting and is a subject-focused feature. I understand it’s from a microsite, but the microsite itself rarely reports on a player in such depth. Additionally, his Freshman All-American selections lend additional weight to his notability when considered alongside the existing coverage. [[User:Versigot|Versigot]] ([[User talk:Versigot|talk]]) 06:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC) |
:*:::I agree that the depth of independent coverage could be improved, but in my view Kurland still meets the notability guidelines. I’ve found [https://www.si.com/college/florida/baseball/cade-kurland-leadership-consistent-force-in-chaotic-offseason-gators-baseball-01ka20dm9ry0 this] article from Sports Illustrated which I feel passes significant coverage. It goes beyond routine reporting and is a subject-focused feature. I understand it’s from a microsite, but the microsite itself rarely reports on a player in such depth. Additionally, his Freshman All-American selections lend additional weight to his notability when considered alongside the existing coverage. [[User:Versigot|Versigot]] ([[User talk:Versigot|talk]]) 06:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC) |
||
|
:”’Draftify”’ As a [[WP:ATD]]. Not notable right now but could very well be in the future. [[User:Servite et contribuere|Servite et contribuere]] ([[User talk:Servite et contribuere|talk]]) 14:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC) |
:”’Draftify”’ As a [[WP:ATD]]. Not notable right now but could very well be in the future. [[User:Servite et contribuere|Servite et contribuere]] ([[User talk:Servite et contribuere|talk]]) 14:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC) |
||
|
* ”’Draftify”’ seems prudent. He looks like he is highly probable to be notable (his high schol accomplishments are out of this world), and it would be best to preserve the work that has gone into this. Keep it intact til the fall, and see how things work out. [[User:Cbl62|Cbl62]] ([[User talk:Cbl62|talk]]) 02:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 02:07, 14 January 2026
- Davian Groce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems WP:TOOSOON for an article at this point. Sources consist of routine coverage of his recruitment/early career (failing WP:YOUNGATH) or are from team-specific microsites. The article was previously draftified before being moved back to mainspace. JTtheOG (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
-
- Comment The subject has received significant independent coverage at the state and some national sports media in both football and track as a blue chip prospect, but I understand that this may not be viewed as enough. If consensus is that the article is premature, I would support draftification rather than deletion, with the intent to recreate following significant collegiate impact. I would also like to note that I moved the article too quickly to mainspace after an earlier draftification. As a newer editor, I did not fully understand the difference between notability concerns and sourcing concerns. Versigot (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hey there, @Versigot: No worries! I hope you learned a lot and continue to grow as a fellow editor. This is a good start. However, as you mentioned, there are notability concerns with this young athlete. WP:YOUNGATH says that high school athletes should be the subject of “substantial and prolonged coverage” that goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage about game performances or recruiting/commitments (usually reserved for upper 5-stars). That doesn’t seem to quite be there yet, but it very well could in the near future! JTtheOG (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- I have similar concerns about Cade Kurland. Outside of the injury announcements and team-specific microsites/student newspapers, this article seems like the only one approaching significant coverage, though it was apparently written by a then-sophomore at the university she’s writing about. JTtheOG (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that the depth of independent coverage could be improved, but in my view Kurland still meets the notability guidelines. I’ve found this article from Sports Illustrated which I feel passes significant coverage. It goes beyond routine reporting and is a subject-focused feature. I understand it’s from a microsite, but the microsite itself rarely reports on a player in such depth. Additionally, his Freshman All-American selections lend additional weight to his notability when considered alongside the existing coverage. Versigot (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- I have similar concerns about Cade Kurland. Outside of the injury announcements and team-specific microsites/student newspapers, this article seems like the only one approaching significant coverage, though it was apparently written by a then-sophomore at the university she’s writing about. JTtheOG (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hey there, @Versigot: No worries! I hope you learned a lot and continue to grow as a fellow editor. This is a good start. However, as you mentioned, there are notability concerns with this young athlete. WP:YOUNGATH says that high school athletes should be the subject of “substantial and prolonged coverage” that goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage about game performances or recruiting/commitments (usually reserved for upper 5-stars). That doesn’t seem to quite be there yet, but it very well could in the near future! JTtheOG (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment The subject has received significant independent coverage at the state and some national sports media in both football and track as a blue chip prospect, but I understand that this may not be viewed as enough. If consensus is that the article is premature, I would support draftification rather than deletion, with the intent to recreate following significant collegiate impact. I would also like to note that I moved the article too quickly to mainspace after an earlier draftification. As a newer editor, I did not fully understand the difference between notability concerns and sourcing concerns. Versigot (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Draftify As a WP:ATD. Not notable right now but could very well be in the future. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- Draftify seems prudent. He looks like he is highly probable to be notable (his high schol accomplishments are out of this world), and it would be best to preserve the work that has gone into this. Keep it intact til the fall, and see how things work out. Cbl62 (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
