Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Liles

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 delete. J04n(talk page) 18:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Liles[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage or reliable independent sources. One of them is lieterally a list created on Reddit compiling other social media posts for a draft of a failed league (and is essentially a reprint of the since deleted draft primary source page). Another is a source from the apparent article creator User talk:Agencyath. He got mentioned in a list and a regional report (which was a brief blurb). He is also far below the standards of WP:NGRIDIRON. I actually get far more news hits on him because he appears to have worked as a sports writer for the Fort Worth Star Telegram covering high school football. I can't find any reports that says he ever played a game or a try-out with any of the NFL teams, or even the arena teams, listed. Yosemiter (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My preliminary searches aren't turning up enough to pass WP:GNG. The most in-depth article I found is at NewsLibrary.com: a 676-word article behind a paywall titled "Liles leads by example" from The Coolidge Examiner of June 22, 2011. I don't have a subscription, so I can't review it. I'll hold off on voting to see if others (User:WikiOriginal-9?) turn up more significant coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cbl62: Would not most articles about his school play in Coolidge not be de-barred by clause 2 in WP:NHSPHSATH (The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability)? This article seems self-published or by an agent as I can find no records of NFL try-outs, which at least nominally gets mentions, or of his supposed play for the AFL in the LA KISS. Yosemiter (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb at NewsLibrary.com suggests that the article was significant coverage, but it's hard to say without reviewing the full article. NHSPHSATH was intended to set a higher bar for high school athletes; if the article deals only with Liles' high school period, NHSPHSATH might apply but, again, hard to say without reviewing the article. Cbl62 (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears (based on date and publisher) to a run-of-the-mill fluff piece on a former local high school player doing well in a NAIA college. We've discussed this before, but I still firmly believe any coverage by a local paper, especially smaller ones, is questionable in its independence as a source. Local papers need to sell papers, and locals will buy papers about local news; however, smaller cities don't have much relevant on-going local news, so they fill it with local interest articles (as in run-of-the-mill or routine), which includes people. Every small paper does this and the sports section is no different (especially if it was in June when there are no other local sports to actually cover). That is why I like to see far more wide range of coverage in at least one other non-stats source. Yosemiter (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts as to whether W:GNG is satisfied here. But your dismissing a source as "a run-of-the-mill fluff piece" without even seeing it is questionable. Cbl62 (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out small papers have to fill their paper with articles to sell it, hence fluff it up, when nothing else is happening. I have lived in towns between 1,000 and 10,000 pop. my entire life and they literally have 1-5 articles every week in their papers about locals, whether it is the business pages (shop owners, restaurateurs, managers, etc) or sports pages (interest pieces on high school, former high school, skiers/snowboarders, etc.) relevant to the area. 99% of the people being discussed in those articles would be considered routine in any other circumstance, yet you have repeatedly claimed that once a high school player has graduated, any coverage, whether or not they were only being covered again because they played high school there, is now deemed non-routine. That is what I have a problem with as I see it as no different than a local chef getting an interest piece. We clearly have different opinions on the matter, and it is what it is. Yosemiter (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have grossly misstated my position. I have never, let alone "repeatedly", claimed that "once a high school player has graduated, any coverage ... is now deemed non-routine." What I said in this case is simply that I would need to see the actual article in question to evaluate it. You, on the other hand, claim to have the remarkable ability to evaluate articles without even reading them. Cbl62 (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this piece is significant coverage, but I'm not familiar with UKEndzone and have doubts as to whether it's a reliable source. Cbl62 (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly in-depth as an interview; however, in the About Us it does they are/were a blog based in the UK (hence the description of college football levels before the interview in the notes). It should also be clarified that the site linked did not actually perform the interview, it was done by another blogger on another defunct blog and re-printed with permission/partnership. Yosemiter (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources: [1][2][3][4] From nl.newsbank.com, The Madison Daily Leader ("DSU's Liles named to 2011 BSN All-American Football third team", "DSU's Eric Liles earns football preseason honor", "Hertz and Liles participate in 2013 USA Freedom Bowl All-Star game") The Coolidge Examiner ("Liles leads by example") WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the sources provided in the article and those found in the discussion above, it seems that the subject does not pass WP:GNG or any other measure that I can find. Subject might achieve notability in the future... perhaps in the near future, so no prejudice toward re-creation of the article. I would change my position if other sources are found and presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Liles played at an NAIA-level school; this is the lowest tier of college football (below NCAA Divisions I, II, and III). It would be rare in the extreme for a player at the NAIA level to receive the type of coverage needed to pass the WP:GNG bar. I agree with Paulmcdonald that there's just not enough coverage revealed to this point to pass that bar. Also, most of the coverage that has been found is from sources (e.g., UK End Zone, Keloland Media Group, SD Sports Buzz, Blog Talk Radio) that may or may not qualify as reliable sources. If additional sources are brought forth, I'd reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 16:17, 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.