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.
Contested PROD with no removal rationale. As with a number of other recently-created and -deleted basketballer articles, this player hasn't (yet) played in any of the
relevant leagues conferring automatic notability, although he's currently on the roster of a team which will play in one of those leagues when it begins. Generally speaking, though, that means that he gets an article when he actually takes the court in the relevant league, rather than beforehand. Current sourcing is better than some, but local/routine mentions only.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 23:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Belgian League is a fully professional one and he's going to play in the ABA League, that meet all the criteria.
Asturkian (
talk) 12:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Actually neither of those things meet the criteria. -
DJSasso (
talk)
Delete Nothing I can find shows he meet
WP:GNG and he doesn't pass
WP:NHOOPS. -
DJSasso (
talk) 12:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
See below for multiple substantial independently published sources of presumed reliability.
Carrite (
talk) 15:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
*Delete - Neither leagues mentioned equate to inherent notability for a player. The subject needs to meet
WP:GNG but fails to reach the bar.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 16:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: per nom, but we're going to keep getting these as long as NSPORTS keeps up with the bonehead dozen-year-old definition of "fully professional" = "top-flight." That language's sell-by date's long passed and it's confusing to people who say "Wait, what, they're all getting paid aren't they?" Nha TrangAllons! 20:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
NSPORT doesn't actually say that and hasn't for awhile. At least for basketball. -
DJSasso (
talk) 12:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)reply
It does for football, which muddies everything else. In a fully professional, 3rd tier league, not everyone should be default notable for one game.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The author of this article wasn't aware of the notabilty criteria, see discussions of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Garcia (basketball). After being made aware of them he removed the articles not likely to pass or
WP:GNG or
WP:NHOOPS. The ones left are Daniel Jansen and Eric Garcia, two players who should pass
WP:NHOOPS in less than a week when they play their first game in the
ABA League. We can be bureaucratic about it and remove them now just to add them again in less than a week (per
WP:CRYSTAL ball and all), or we could just wait, this being a new editors rookie mistake which he is now aware of not doing again.
Dammit_steve (
talk) 16:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for basketball players.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - With all due respect, deletion advocates, you have this one wrong. Don't care that he's not a player in a pro league, he was the
Division II Player of the Year in 2016 and as such passes our General Notability Guideline. The GNG for basketball players is therefore irrelevant.
Carrite (
talk) 15:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep also agree with Carrite. The reason for the nomination made sense but in this case the player has separate notability already.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm guessing the scope of that article is intentionally limited to Division I. Frankly, I'm not sure that winning a Division II award is enough to demonstrate notability. Division II sports just really aren't a very big deal to most American sports fans.
Lepricavark (
talk) 04:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 02:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I think it depends on the sport. DII football is well represented on Wikipedia - DII basketball not so much, but the player of the year, as arguably the best player in the entire division, should pass the notability test.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 18:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Note to closing admin This player is scheduled to make his debut in the
ABA League in about five hours. Please hold off on a final decision until that point and note that any arguments that he doesn't meet
WP:NBASKETBALL will be moot. Let's avoid a deletion followed by an "acceptable" re-creation. Thanks.
Rikster2 (
talk) 12:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep setting aside that the player will likely meet
WP:NBASKETBALL in a few hours, he meets GNG in my estimation (though I found it easier to find sources using "Dan" vs. "Daniel") with sources like
this and
this and
this.
Rikster2 (
talk) 12:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Now meets
WP:NBASKETBALL, per Rikster2. He probably met
WP:GNG &
WP:NCOLLATH, even before that, but that's all a moot point now. A real time-waster of an AfD nomination.
Ejgreen77 (
talk) 22:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)reply
You're welcome to express your opinion, but given the state of the article at the time I came across it, I can assure you this hasn't been a waste of time. Best to remain civil about such things, I would suggest.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 22:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep passes NBASKETBALL. I remain unconvinced that being a DII player of the year counts for anything.
Lepricavark (
talk) 00:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)reply
well, I did provide three substantial articles from three different independent reliable sources above. It’s moot at this point, but since I started looking after this discussion it has appeared that D2 NPOYS do receive coverage enough to meet GNG, at least recent ones where you’d expect to find on-line sources.
Rikster2 (
talk) 00:25, 4 October 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.
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.
Contested PROD with no removal rationale. As with a number of other recently-created and -deleted basketballer articles, this player hasn't (yet) played in any of the
relevant leagues conferring automatic notability, although he's currently on the roster of a team which will play in one of those leagues when it begins. Generally speaking, though, that means that he gets an article when he actually takes the court in the relevant league, rather than beforehand. Current sourcing is better than some, but local/routine mentions only.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 23:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Belgian League is a fully professional one and he's going to play in the ABA League, that meet all the criteria.
Asturkian (
talk) 12:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Actually neither of those things meet the criteria. -
DJSasso (
talk)
Delete Nothing I can find shows he meet
WP:GNG and he doesn't pass
WP:NHOOPS. -
DJSasso (
talk) 12:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
See below for multiple substantial independently published sources of presumed reliability.
Carrite (
talk) 15:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
*Delete - Neither leagues mentioned equate to inherent notability for a player. The subject needs to meet
WP:GNG but fails to reach the bar.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 16:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: per nom, but we're going to keep getting these as long as NSPORTS keeps up with the bonehead dozen-year-old definition of "fully professional" = "top-flight." That language's sell-by date's long passed and it's confusing to people who say "Wait, what, they're all getting paid aren't they?" Nha TrangAllons! 20:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
NSPORT doesn't actually say that and hasn't for awhile. At least for basketball. -
DJSasso (
talk) 12:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)reply
It does for football, which muddies everything else. In a fully professional, 3rd tier league, not everyone should be default notable for one game.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The author of this article wasn't aware of the notabilty criteria, see discussions of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Garcia (basketball). After being made aware of them he removed the articles not likely to pass or
WP:GNG or
WP:NHOOPS. The ones left are Daniel Jansen and Eric Garcia, two players who should pass
WP:NHOOPS in less than a week when they play their first game in the
ABA League. We can be bureaucratic about it and remove them now just to add them again in less than a week (per
WP:CRYSTAL ball and all), or we could just wait, this being a new editors rookie mistake which he is now aware of not doing again.
Dammit_steve (
talk) 16:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for basketball players.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - With all due respect, deletion advocates, you have this one wrong. Don't care that he's not a player in a pro league, he was the
Division II Player of the Year in 2016 and as such passes our General Notability Guideline. The GNG for basketball players is therefore irrelevant.
Carrite (
talk) 15:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep also agree with Carrite. The reason for the nomination made sense but in this case the player has separate notability already.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm guessing the scope of that article is intentionally limited to Division I. Frankly, I'm not sure that winning a Division II award is enough to demonstrate notability. Division II sports just really aren't a very big deal to most American sports fans.
Lepricavark (
talk) 04:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 02:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I think it depends on the sport. DII football is well represented on Wikipedia - DII basketball not so much, but the player of the year, as arguably the best player in the entire division, should pass the notability test.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 18:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Note to closing admin This player is scheduled to make his debut in the
ABA League in about five hours. Please hold off on a final decision until that point and note that any arguments that he doesn't meet
WP:NBASKETBALL will be moot. Let's avoid a deletion followed by an "acceptable" re-creation. Thanks.
Rikster2 (
talk) 12:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep setting aside that the player will likely meet
WP:NBASKETBALL in a few hours, he meets GNG in my estimation (though I found it easier to find sources using "Dan" vs. "Daniel") with sources like
this and
this and
this.
Rikster2 (
talk) 12:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Now meets
WP:NBASKETBALL, per Rikster2. He probably met
WP:GNG &
WP:NCOLLATH, even before that, but that's all a moot point now. A real time-waster of an AfD nomination.
Ejgreen77 (
talk) 22:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)reply
You're welcome to express your opinion, but given the state of the article at the time I came across it, I can assure you this hasn't been a waste of time. Best to remain civil about such things, I would suggest.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 22:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep passes NBASKETBALL. I remain unconvinced that being a DII player of the year counts for anything.
Lepricavark (
talk) 00:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)reply
well, I did provide three substantial articles from three different independent reliable sources above. It’s moot at this point, but since I started looking after this discussion it has appeared that D2 NPOYS do receive coverage enough to meet GNG, at least recent ones where you’d expect to find on-line sources.
Rikster2 (
talk) 00:25, 4 October 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.