Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Taylor (basketball)


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter  (lecture)  @ 11:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Jack Taylor (basketball)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Individual received media attention solely because of the events of a single basketball game, and as a athlete at a small, otherwise non-noteworthy university, has no other claims of notability. His achievement of a record does not automatically confer notability.  Grsz 11 03:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - NCOLLATH specifically states that college athletes Are notable if they "Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.". Taylor set the single game scoring mark for all divisions - this achievement is the highest total achieved in any college basketball game ever in any classification in over 100 years of competition.  Additionally, Taylor's US coverage over this achievement has been covered by even major non-sports news agencies and has been commented upon by Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and others. Rikster2 (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Rikster, I have not yet researched this AfD to the extent I normally do, but I do note that WP:NCOLLATH imparts a presumption of notability if, among other things, the player "established a major Division I (NCAA) record."  Grinnell University sports teams compete in NCAA Division III, not Division I.  I think it's important that we start this AfD with full and accurate facts.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - yes, the section I bolded specifically states that. This record is all divisions and frankly, if any record in basketball is notable it's a scoring reord.  This would never have gotten the press it did if he'd grabbed some ungodly number of rebounds or assists.  There are less than 5 people who have scored 100+ points in any official college game. Rikster2 (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rikster, WP:NCOLLATH specifically requires a "major Division I record," not an "all-divisions record." It may very well be that the subject satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but any reliance on WP:NCOLLATH is clearly misplaced.  The subject scored 138 points against a team from Faith Baptist Bible College, a member of the National Christian College Athletic Association (NCCAA) Division 2, not the NCAA or even the NAIA.  The NCCAA includes small Christian colelges that are otherwise too small to qualify for NCAA or NAIA membership.  The circumstances under which this record were set are a bit like a large high school team beating the crap out of an undersized team from a junior high school.  Yes, it's an NCAA record, but it's not a Division I record, and it's not what is explicitly required by WP:NCOLLATH.  Let's focus this AfD discussion on whether the subject meets WP:GNG, as we should in the absence of any applicable specific notability guideline.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would argue both the achievement and the coverage it spurred (for a reason) are notable. The coverage was there because he's the first guy in over 50 years to go over 100 in any official game (regardless of competition) and beat the old record by more than 20 points.  The press has followed the achievement because it is so rare. Rikster2 (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (Disclaimer: I started this article.)  While the guideline - not rule - says Division I, in a strong sense, "all" supercedes Division I.  In any case, as Rister2 has noted, this event has generated a lot of media attention.  On a side note: to call Grinnell "a small, otherwise non-noteworthy university" is inaccurate:  Grinnell is a small college (not university) that is noteworthy in a number of ways outside of sports. Kdammers (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Kdammers, most of us appreciate candor, and the author of an article is entitled to express his opinion at AfD just like any other Wikipedia editor in good standing, especially if he expresses valid reasons based in Wikipedia policy and sound logic. With regard to WP:NCOLLATH, it is intentionally written the way it is for a reason: in short, level of competition.  To be perfectly blunt, NCAA Division I sports competition is almost universally of a higher level than that of Division II and III.  Only in rare circumstances will an individual college athlete at the Division II or III level prove himself to be competing at an equal or higher level compared to the best athletes in Division I.  That having been said, I believe that there is more than enough mainstream medial coverage of this record to justify including this subject in Wikipedia per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG.  The only reason I have not registered a "keep" vote yet is that I wanted to check on the application of the "one event" exception per WP:BLP1E, and also to see how we had handled other college-level record-setters in similar circumstances.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say there is no strong sense that a record among all levels supercedes that of Division I. The level of competition is nowhere near comparable even between two Division III teams. In this case, the opponent was of far lower quality, having less students than Jack Taylor's high school. I haven't been able to find any mention of the record by the NCAA. One would think that if their record was broken they would at least make some mention. I'm not sure what their criteria is, but do they recognize records against non-NCAA opponents?  Grsz 11 14:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for grins, here is the article from NCAA.com on Taylor "Crushing" the previous NCAA mark: http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2012-11-20/taylor-crushes-ncaa-single-game-scoring-record-25-points Apparently, Taylor broke 6 other NCAA records in the game. Rikster2 (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Grsz, as I pointed out above, the application of WP:NCOLLATH is moot. It does not apply.  If you are seeking to support your AfD nomination, I suggest that you focus on the subject's notability per WP:GNG or other bases for a valid AfD.  Per WP:GNG, the level of competition and NCAA recognition, if any, of the record mean very little; notability will be determined by the quantity and quality of reliable sources.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Since Taylor is the NCAA record holder, there's going to be long-term interest in what he accomplished, so it seems like a good idea to cover him in Wikipedia, even if he never goes on to the pros. People will want to have something more than just an entry in a list. In this particular case, I'm not too concerned about BLP1E. He didn't commit a crime, or anything like that, and moving the page to Jack Taylor's 138 point game seems unnecessarily complicated. I should note that Grinnell College is actually one of the better-known DIII colleges, even in a basketball context. Because of their style of play, they'd been featured on ESPN in the past: They're certainly not Duke or UNC, but there is interest in the program. All of their stats will be available online, so we know that we'll at least be able to expand the article to summarize the rest of his college career. (But I'm sure there will eventually be some sort of "Where are they now?" article about him.) Zagal e jo^^^ 06:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I'm not going to cite NCOLLATH due to others lawyering its word choice in notability criteria, but Jack Taylor garnered so much media coverage that he personally led off SportsCenter the morning after he scored 138 points. He's received international attention (or scrutiny, depending on one's opinion) for this achievement, and he plays for one of the best-known Division III basketball programs due to their insane style of offensive play. His 138 points shattered Bevo Francis' record by over 20 points, one which was thought to be unbreakable, and at this point Taylor's record will likely stand for eternity (who honestly thinks someone will come along and score 139?). It's premature to add this to AfD, especially because for the rest of this season Taylor (and Grinnell, probably) will garner continued media coverage beyond a ONEEVENT situation. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BLP1E would be the strongest reason to merge or delete, but the policy applies "only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Scoring the most points in NCAA history, even if it wasn't in Division I, differentiates him from being low-profile based on the media's fascination with the historic achievement.  Articles still being written almost a week later.  Pretty confident that GNG will be obvious years from now even if one argues that it hasn't been already.—Bagumba (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've since expanded and added additional sources to the article, and believe it has been demonstrated to meet WP:GNG. The subject is receiving significant coverage over multiple days—these are not trivial mentions syndicated by a single news source that is part of a one-day news blip.—Bagumba (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We have very different opinions on what constitutes significant coverage over multiple-days. A follow-up article about the fact that he was mediocre the next game or about how he still goes to class, from a local news source no less, is not significant coverage.  Grsz 11 20:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. I think this is pretty clear cut, especially since the record was produced by the gimmick system Grinnell runs. The fact that a teammate who held the previous record scored only seven point in this game shows that. Everyone is pointing out that the event received significant coverage, but BLP1E specifically calls out this case in that these reliable sources are only covering him for this one game. There are followup articles, but only comparing this game to the previous game. If the 138-point game never happened, he'd never be getting followup stories. Everyone is also pointing out that this is the ALL DIVISION NCAA record. This doesn't seem to be a valid point to me, since it was against inferior competition. It's like if I scored 138 points in the driveway against my sister. There's no way I could score that many against a high school team. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of clarification, so that people don't get confused, the teammate mentioned above (Griffin Lentsch) held the DIII record, but not the overall NCAA scoring record. (And while Lentsch did score 89 points, that's still 49 points behind Taylor.) It is true that Taylor had the benefit of a quirky strategy and an inferior opponent, but a record is a record. He's going to be in sports reference books no matter what. Zagal e jo^^^ 06:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a sports reference book. We don't have articles just because somebody broke a record, however dubious the accomplishment. I think the follow-up article after the next game saying he only scored 21 points is strong evidence that Taylor will fade into obscurity within a matter of weeks.  Grsz 11 15:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, once a topic has received significant coverage it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Please review the updated article for the expanded content and range of coverage over multiple days.—Bagumba (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And the coverage is only there only because of the 183 point game. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Per BLP1E, articles on a person are OK in "the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented". There is no reason to override GNG in this case.—Bagumba (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And for sake of completeness, here's the rest of the text from BLP1E: "...as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." I don't think the event is significant. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your "range of coverage over multiple days" is a bunch of articles one day, then a few after the next game. Is the national media going to write an article about him every week now for the rest of the season? Doubtful.  Grsz 11 20:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

STRONG kEEP. I think the article answered my questions and is well-written and it would be stupid to eliminate it. This is something people want to know. I went to Wikipedia to read it and I would have been disappointed if I had not found it. Dewie Gaul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.223.56 (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "If the 138-point game never happened, he'd never be getting followup stories" - Yeah - beacuse the 138 point game was an all-time record for points in a college basketball game! Honestly, I find the voiced concerns that the record isn't notable because of the system Grinnell playes or the level of competition ridiculous.  In 100+ years of college basketball play, thousands of players have played against overmatched opponents and many have played in offensive oriented systems (the all time single game scoring record against a D1 opponent is held by Kevin Bradshaw, who played in almost the exact same type of system at US International).  Did Grinnell actively try to get Taylor the record?  Absolutely, but ANY player who gets that number of points had that kind of help.  Heck, when Wilt scored 100, the Warriors intentionally fouled the Knicks in the fourth quarter just to get the ball back so they could feed Wilt again.  Not in their best competitive interest, but they did it.  No, Wikipedia isn't a Sports Almanac, but we also aren't talking about some Assist/Turnover record either.  This is the most points in an official college basketball game EVER, one of 4 100+ point games in college basketball history EVER, and the highest single game point total in US basketball history - college, high school or pro - EVER.  The comparisons to a high school team against a junior high team or scoring points on one's sister in the driveway are amusing, but off base.  The record was obtained by a college player in a regulation game against another college (not junior college, not prep school, not high school, not JV) team.  I think it is a no-brainer that a short article on the all-time record holder for college basketball's highest-profile individual record should exist. Rikster2 (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First, you probably shouldn't be calling other arguments "ridiculous". Second, as pointed out above, the opponent is a member of the National Christian College Athletic Association -- and Division II at that. Also, the game was an exhibition for Faith Baptist Bible College. The level of competition is definitely in question to me here. — X96lee15 (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you shouldn't make snarky comments like comparing this to playing your sister but instead just stick to your points. When a ridiculous argument is made, I will feel free to point that out.  And the level of competition doesn't stop this from being recognized by the NCAA as the all-time record, as evidenced by the story from the NCAA's own site.  I didn't say it wasn't a factor in the point total, I said it makes no difference to the siginificance of the achievement from a historical standpoint - and it doesn't Rikster2 (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, please stop calling other's arguments ridiculous. I was making a comparison to a real-world situation so that people not familiar with the NCAA and NCCAA would understand the disparity in the level of competition during this exhibition game. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction, not an exhibition game for Grinnell. This is evidenced not only by the NCAA counting the scoring output as the all time record, but they clearly count the Faith Baptist game as part of the school's overall record here, and the conference and school do the same.  additionally, while they do mark the Grinnell game as an exhibition on their schedule (every non NCCAA game seems to be marked as such - probably because it helps their statistics), Faith Baptist seems to count David Larson's 70 points in the game their new school record - a highly unusual move if they truly saw the game as an exhibition.  But regardless, the game was legit enough for the NCAA (the largest governing body of the sport in the US and the one that governs Grinnell College) to count the feat as the all division record - which IMO renders biases to the contrary moot. Rikster2 (talk)


 * Keep. Having reviewed the sources available regarding the subject to date, I am satisfied that he and/or his record satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG.  I was less convinced that the subject was not a "one-hit" wonder, subject to the "one event" exception per WP:BLP1E.  However, please note the following quoted language from WP:BLP1E: "some subject specific notability guidelines such as Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event."  This exception to the "one event" exception seems to cover exactly this sort of notable sports event.  I might also add that I explored whether Wikipedia has an appropriate "list of" article that includes American college basketball record-holders; we do not.  So, congratulations, Mr. Jack Taylor, I think you get to have your very own Wikipedia article.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2012 (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.