Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omarius Hines

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omarius Hines[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Hines is a non-notable college athlete that never made it to the NFL. He fails WP:GRIDIRON, as never played in the NFL. Thus we must fall to his college career. During his college career, he only caught a total of 64 passes for 801 yards over three seasons. Thus, he fails WP:NCOLLATH, as the coverage of him in various sources is prototypical of any college athlete trying to make the NFL. Thus, we must fall to WP:GNG to see if he is notable enough for inclusion. All of the coverage of Hines in the article is transactional in nature or common coverage of college athletes attempting to enter a professional league. As such, I believe he is not notable enough for inclusion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Did you actually review the sources cited in the article as required by WP:BEFORE to assure yourself that they do not constitute significant coverage? Cbl62 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, as I have a Newspapers.com account. We've had these discussions before Cbl62 on similar articles. I think it just comes down to an honest disagreement between how you and I define "significant coverage". I don't view profile articles during the time that a player is trying to make the NFL (especially when all the articles are written in just a 3 month span) to be significant coverage. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my opinion, it looks like Hines got some buzz at the beginning of his senior year, which is common. But he never had sustained, significant coverage. This becomes even more apparent as we move farther away from the end of his college career and the recentism of his playing days is lessened. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the coverage spans ~~three~~ 11 years and ~~five~~ multiple distinct sources. Also it is interesting that you claim to have read the sources on Newspapers.com since most of them are not even available there. Cbl62 (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, I obviously could not review the sources that you added that are not accessible online (how could I?). I merely pointed out that my access to Newspapers.com provides me a little more access than the normal user to some of the articles that are referenced in the article. Also, WP:BEFORE is not a policy or guideline; it's an information/instruction page. Even if it was a policy, how could I possibly review sources that aren't accessible to me...? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion: If you do not have access to and have not reviewed the source material, do not make the affirmative assertion that "all of the coverage" in the article is "prototypical" or "common". (That statement suggested that you had, in fact, reviewed "all of the coverage" in the article, when you had not.) Maybe also consider not nominating articles for AfD where you do not have access to the cited sources. Cbl62 (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is moot, as you obviously knew I did not have access to all the articles. Again, WP:BEFORE is not a policy. I reviewed all the material I was able to review and made a determination about what was available. That was my affirmative assertion and I am sorry it wasn't clearer. The inclusion of poorly formatted, non-inline citations that are inaccessible to most users should not preclude an AFD. All users are able to review the article and make a determination of its merits. I don't understand the point of your suggestion, other than to badger the nominator (to be clear, not accusing you, just expressing how it is being perceived on my part). The discussion is progressing just fine and it isn't a snow keep, so there seems to be some justifiable disagreement and benefit to having this overall deletion discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cbl62 on this one--the statement in the nomination "All of the coverage of Hines in the article is..." claims that "all" the coverage in the article has been reviewed, when it is later stated that it has not been reviewed. No one else can "know" what anyone does or does not have access to offline. The point of the suggestion is a request to avoid making AFD nominations without first completing a little research to avoid unnecessary work and a disruptive environment. Sure, you can do it anyway--and you can also be asked not to do it. But I'm going to add Wikipedia:Read the source and WP:DONTLIE and please in the future do not say "all of the coverage of _____ in the article is..." when you have not actually looked at "all of the coverage." I don't think you were being intentionally disruptive and simply make a quick poor choice of words which is very forgivable. My point is to identify the issue and ask that you and all of us be more careful with our wording in the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, a recommendation somewhat related to this discussion: your use of shortcuts to express your opinions almost always come across as insulting. This is especially true when you are dealing with regular editors that are very knowledgeable of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's even worse when they are basic essays that you wrote (and not actual policies or guidelines) that convey simple concepts, like "don't lie" (there's a wonderful essay on the subject of using essays/shortcuts to make a point, but for me to link it in this discussion would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?). Do you really think someone needs to read your essay to understand why lying is bad...? Do you really think it's helpful for you to go around telling people not to lie on Wikipedia? Is that ever really necessary? Is it ever done in a way that isn't condescending?

In response to your actual comment, not sure how you think you are helping. Cbl62 expressed some concerns, and I clarified my comments and asked them to wrap-up that part of the discussion. Did you think that I didn't understand Cbl62's comments? Also, just to be clear, telling someone "don't lie" is accusing them of lying. If, as you say, you believe that I "simply [made] a quick poor choice of words", then how was your comment helpful in any way? Other than to make a point? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it is necessary. I've been active on Wikipedia since 2007, you're the first editor to tell me that my use of shortcuts was insulting. I am sorry you feel that way. Those are your feelings, not my intent. Shortcuts to essays, guidelines, and policies are quite common, widely accepted, and found to be useful. If you want to discuss this further, we should take it to another forum to keep this discussion germane.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs improvement, but Hines was a play-maker at tight end, wide receiver and running back for Florida in the Urban Meyer years. He passes WP:GNG. The following are examples of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources spanning an 11-year period from 2007 to 2018: (1) "Gator made" (Hines profile), Corsicana Daily Sun, 11/27/07; (2) "Waiting for his chance" (Hines profile), Corsicana Daily Sun, 9/3/09 (477 words); (3) "Omarius Hines to try his hand at tight end", St. Petersburg Times, 8/13/10 (153 words); (4) "Omarius Hines, Trey Burton give UF a chance to be tricky", The Florida Times-Union, 8/22/12 (677 words); (5) "Florida Gators’ Omarius Hines is ‘a threat ... a weapon’,", The Miami Herald, 8/25/10 (533 words); (6) "Omarius Hines ready to show off his versatility with Gators", McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, 8/26/10 (471 words); (7) "Gators focus on new wild card Hines could become another playmaker who is hard to pin down", The Florida Times-Union, 8/27/10 (466 words); (8) "Gators to take advantage of Hines' versatility", The Gainesville Sun; (9) "Florida Gators' Omarius Hines more than tight end", The Miami Herald, 9/2/10 (503 words); (10) "Omarius Hines will take over for Chris Rainey", St. Petersburg Times, 9/5/10 (176 words); (11) "Florida TE Omarius Hines might get call to provide offensive spark", The Florida Times-Union, 10/17/10 (361 words); (12) "Florida Gator Omarius Hines ready to make up for lost time", Tampa Bay Times, 8/23/12; (13) "UF's versatile Hines", The Gainesville Sun, 8/27/12 (473 words); (14) "Hines, Corsicana native, is Gators' versatile weapon", McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, 9/6/12 (559 words, reprinted here); (15) "Versatile Hines hard to handle", The Gainesville Sun, 10/9/12 (269 words); (16) "Former Gators Frankie Hammond, Omarius Hines to play in All-Star game today", Tampa Bay Times, 1/11/13 (247 words). In addition, his abuse at the hands of the Florida coaching staff was a notable point in the 2018 expose of Urban Meyer found at (17) here. Cbl62 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of those articles that falls into the grey area that we continue to talk about over and over again. WP:NCOLLATH requires national coverage for presumptive notability of college athletes, and Hines doesn't have that, with only regional coverage on him as an amateur athlete. He also fails WP:NGRIDIRON having failed to make it in professional football. Articles such as [1] and [2] are routine local sports reporting and don't really establish his notability as an athlete, even though his name is in the headline. Even with all of this it'd be difficult to squeeze much more than a stub out of this article. In my estimation this isn't quite as bad as some of the other ones that have been kept or no consensus-ed, Wikipedia tends to take a very narrow view of athletes who are only locally notable in other sports who don't pass the sport's SNG (for instance, I was recently a keep !voter in a basketball article which was deleted, and you'd be hard pressed to find a footy player on here who is both notable and hasn't played an AFL game.) I see no reason to make an exception here. SportingFlyer T·C 10:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep looks like a clear pass of WP:GNG based on the media coverage from his college days alone. Feature articles are WP:NOTROUTINE and are clearly beyond the scope of "sports scores" defined in the text of the WP:ROUTINE guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. WP:GNG trumps WP:NGRIDIRON (see Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ Q3, for a definitive answer on this, i.e., if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia). The fact that other sports projects ignore/misinterpret this is irrelevant. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Generally, I would lean against keeping a page for a player who ended up totaling 2 touchdowns in his college career, and whose best season was finishing third in receiving yards on an 8-5 UF team. But he appears to meet GNG per his non-routine coverage in The Miami Herald and Tampa Bay Times, as well as his role in the Urban Meyer controversy. Ostealthy (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't looked at the sources yet, but the arguments are deja vu of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Walker III, which I nominated and was closed as "no consensus" (unrelated, but he later received more coverage, enough IMO).—Bagumba (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – subject passes WP:GNG per the significant coverage presented by Cbl62. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SNOW subject easily passes WP:GNG per the significant coverage. Deleting the article of a Green Bay Packer? Shame Shame. He was GNG in college, and he does not lose his GNG. Lubbad85 (☎) 18:56, 21 May 2019 (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.