Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Molitor


 * 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   '''No consensus, default to delete. '''. The subject's notability is marginal, and the "keep" side has not made a convincing argument that he is clearly notable. The BLP problems push it over the edge, especially the idea that it lasted so long. The Wordsmith Communicate 03:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Chris Molitor

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

While the subject may be barely notable, the article history shows that we have not able to keep the article compliant with WP:BLP. Absent some means of ensuring compliance, deletion is the only sensible option. Kevin (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think the article history shows what the nom says, however, I'm not convinced that 15 minutes of pro-playing time makes a person notable. Location (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep 5 games in the NBL is 4 more than needed. A little bit of vandalism is not a good reason to delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep no valid reason for deletion stated. "Barely notable"   =   "notable". That an article has been vandalized is no reason to delete.    DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete 5 matches in a failing basketball league isn't notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources either. These articles are impossible to maintain because no-one watchlists them. It is more than "a bit of vandalism". This had badly non-compliant material sitting in the article for months. Why did it sit there? Because it is an article about a non-notable person that no-one attends to. Therein lies the foolishness of allowing these stubs to proliferate. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know where your claim of a failing basketball league comes from. I have no real interest in basketball but just watching the news I see more than I want about the fortunes of queensland nbl basketball happenings. This article has only been edited 10 times (one being a bot). Far from being a target for vandalism. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just look at the history. Look at every edit. And then look at how long the edits remained without being reverted. There lies the problem. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While looking at the history should I look at this edit? a positive and constructive edit. In the history I see One problematic act of vandalism. Yes, it's wrong that it stayed there for two and a bit months, things could be better. One real problem is not a target for vandilism, and is not IMO an article history that shows that we have not able to keep the article compliant with WP:BLP, especially now that the problem has been removed (and should have been removed earlier, one wonders why it was left intact here). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Mkativerata in that Wikipedia shouldn't be a depository of thousands of barely-"notable" sports figures whose realistic chances at becoming anything more than a flash in the pan are slim to none. Yes, there are criteria for inclusionism, but a core Wikipedia policy is that common sense should trump any guidelines or rules. In this case, I strongly believe the common sense decision is to delete. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Subject is presumed notable by meeting WP:ATHLETE criterion number 1 as having played in the NBL. Yes, he may have only played during cleanup time, but that's irrelevant. Content satisfies WP:V. As DGG indicates, "barely notable" does indicate "notable"; an AfD isn't the place to arbitrarily rewrite an established notability guideline, but to apply it, and arguing the contrary borders on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale. As for the problem of no one watching the article and reverting the vandalism, that is not a reason for deletion. There are protection options available, and, in fact, I'll personally add this article to my watch list. Problem solved. -- Kinu t /c  01:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added a bit more to the article, including information about his 3rd place finish in Rookie of the Year voting (really, after playing 15 minutes?), and his switch to playing football. -- Kinu t /c  10:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.