Talk:Kamaiu Johnson

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 February 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Golf Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Golf, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Golf-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GolfWikipedia:WikiProject GolfTemplate:WikiProject GolfGolf articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

On notability

Regarding the recent tag by User:John B123; I have basically no experience with sports figures bio's on WP, so my understanding of notability criteria may be weak. That said, it seems like this guy has a pretty good amount of direct coverage in some fairly high-quality news outlets. I think he meets WP:GNG. NickCT (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamaiu Johnson is a professional golfer from Tallahassee gives no indication of notability. If he is notable then the reason why needs to explained on the page, otherwise WP:A7 is applicable. --John B123 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: - I guess he's notable for being a professional golfer, which is explained in the stub. Regardless, the more important question is whether he meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria, which I think he does. NickCT (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Professional golfers aren't inherently notable, they need to meet WP:NGOLF. To meet WP:NOTABILITY the page needs to show why he's notable. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform readers, an article that just says somebody is a golfer is pointless without further expansion. --John B123 (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: - Sorta disagree about it being useless. I mean, knowing that Person X is a professional golfer is significantly more than knowing nothing about person X.

So you're shifting your argument to notability now? You're no longer saying WP:A7 applies?

I don't really know about WP:NGOLF, but I do know about WP:GNG which trumps WP:NGOLF. This guy seems to have attained significant coverage. If you disagree, there's always AfD..... NickCT (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not shifting anything, just responding to your comment. If he's notable what is he notable for? --John B123 (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You started off talking about A7 for which the standard is that someone/something is "important or significant", then shifted to notability. Which one is it?

Notability is based on coverage in RS. An article doesn't have to explain why something is notable. Something is notable purely by virtue of the fact that it has been noted in RS. NickCT (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I explained about A7 after which you brought in notability to which I responded, that's how conversations work. If the reasons for notability doesn't have to be present in the article in the article why do we have A7? --John B123 (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: - You keep conflating notability and A7. The standard for A7 is "important or significant" not notable. If this article simply read "Kamaiu Johnson is a dude from Tallahassee", that would be an A7. NickCT (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, being a pro golfer is not a credible claim of significance or importance, so the original text of the article ("Kamaiu Johnson is a professional golfer from Tallahassee") would also qualify as A7. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a pro golfer seems significant to me. NickCT (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is no more significant than any other occupation, or being from Tallahassee. The vast majority spend their days teaching and/or working in a shop, or otherwise running aspects of a golf organisation/facility – i.e. they are not practicing and playing tournament golf. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Well, I don't think "significant" is really well defined. But in my mind what makes them significant is that, 1) they're rare (only 20k pro golfers? Tallahassee has 200k), 2) they have a special and rare skill (i.e. they play golf good), & 3) they attract attention (i.e. we watch them on TV). NickCT (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you seem to be conflating elite tournament pros and club pros – the latter account for well over 95% (probably >99%) of professional golfers. Some research may assist your understanding but our professional golfer article is awful, so I'd suggest looking elsewhere. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I have no idea what the difference is between a tournament pro and club pro, and honestly, I don't really care to know. I prefer to learn about sports that are actually sports.

Regardless, this conversation becomes a little stale.....

If our professional golfer article is awful, why aren't you improving it? NickCT (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That really doesn't surprise me. See WP:VOLUNTEER. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems cynical. WP puts out some great stuff. Volunteerism rocks. I'm a volunteer. I've written stuff that isn't awful.

And none of that answers why if you've recognized something is wrong, you aren't taking responsibility for it. NickCT (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]