Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Wesley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Walton Need some help? 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Wesley

William Wesley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is one of the most confusing pages I've ever seen on Wikipedia. This guy is supposedly connected in some nebulous way to various high-profile basketball players, though the nature of those connections is not really clear nor explained by whoever wrote the article. For example, he was "very visible" before Lebron James's signing...how? Google didn't seem to be very high on relevant hits, and the two sources listed with the article have been deleted. Thunderbunny 04:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep although those two sources are now paywalled they are reliable sources. The article needs cleanup, but the subject is notable as a behind-the-scenes fixer/consigliere in the NBA. Most of the ghits on him are sports blogs, which are mostly unusable (either what they say is verifiable elsewhere, or it's pointless speculation), e.g.[1]. Here are some more sources we can use: [2][3][4] A couple of iffier ones are [5][6]. --Dhartung | Talk 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Surreal. The article in its current state is a mess, but I'm honestly uncertain if this article can be written. Wesley is apparently real. ESPN mentions him. He's evidently even quoted in this subscription-required New York Times article. Otherwise, the TrueHoop blog, now owned by ESPN, apparently investigated him, producing a large amount of text with very little actual information (although someone noticed felt it warranted metareporting). At the end of it all, he is apparently someone who knows a lot of people, and might make a living by helping to arrange contracts and contacts via these connections. Maybe. And I just do not know if that's enough to be notable even with reliable sources saying it. Serpent's Choice 05:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with Serpent's Choice. Needs to be worked on, not removed. ~ G1ggy! ...chatterbox... 10:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Players at the top level of sport are notable, guys who kinda sorta hang out with them in some nebulous way are not. Nick mallory 12:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment See, that's where the article fails. It makes him sound like a hanger-on. But we have a guy who top basketball reporter Scoop Jackson (writer) calls "the most powerful guy in the NBA". He's a fixer, a consultant, a personal manager, an agent, a negotiator, a recruiter, a man who could be in a suit in the VIP section or in a warm-up jacket sitting on the bench, a man on the rolodex of everyone who matters in the league, a man whose rolodex you want to get on and if you aren't you probably don't matter. It's probably precisely because he isn't any of those things officially that gives him the anywhere-everywhere access and influence that he has. Find a video of the Pacers-Pistons brawl, if you can (active takedown policy), and he's the guy in the gray suit who gets out onto the court and protects Ron Artest from getting pepper-sprayed by a Detroit cop. You can think of this in one way, protecting a friend/client, or you can think of it as preventing the only thing that could have made the incident worse -- an NBA player getting himself arrested on the court. He's a fascinating character. I first heard of him in connection with Jordan a few years back, but he seems to have only become more enigmatic and powerful since then. Anyway, I don't have the Detroit News text at this point, but I think I can improve the article without it for now. --Dhartung | Talk 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The current article needs improvement, but I think that's achieveable. A LexisNexis search makes it clear that multiple media sources have written significant articles about this man, so he does meet the primary notability criterion, and reliable sources are available. In fact, and he may qualify as notable for being the subject of media speculation even apart from anything he's actually done. EALacey 19:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on sources Sources that require payment are still sources. Obviously we don;'t want to use them if we can find equivalent free sources, but we should use the best sources there are. Many people will be able to obtain them, and can post a fair use excerpt here is there is doubt about what they say. DGG 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - although currently requiring payment, there are indpendent reliable sources for articles where this person is the subject of the article.
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.