Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Presutti


 * 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. It is frankly impossible to read any consensus from a mass delete like this. I'm sure not going to take the time to figure out who played at least 20 minutes. JodyB'''yak, yak, yak 19:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Jake Presutti
Also nominating the whole squad with the exception of one player who is one of the top college basketball players. The other players nominated are Eric Devendorf, Johnny Flynn, Paul Harris (basketball), Rick Jackson, Antonio Jardine, Kristof Ongenaet, Arinze Onuaku, Jake Presutti, Andy Rautins , Sean Williams (Syracuse), and Josh Wright. Also assistant coaches Mike Hopkins (basketball) and Rob Murphy (basketball) and the template Template:Syracuse basketball. Consensus on college athletes tend to be delete, unless they win a major award or considered as a top prospect, in which this players doesn't meet. Fails WP:BIO. Delete Jaranda wat's sup 07:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, per custom on college athletes, and per WP:BIO's prohibition on non-professional and otherwise un-special athletes. Maybe someday, but not to-day. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 08:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you really think Johnny Flynn is an "otherwise un-special athlete"? Google him and you'll quickly see that he represented Team USA in the U-19 championships in Texas recently, and that he's also an NBA prospect. Chengwes 22:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete just Jake Presutti pursuant to the Tier One option. My comments were directed at the article listed for deletion, not those listed in the partially struck-out summary of reasons for deletion. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 20:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the starters.  I personally know that Devendorf is pretty notable.  Delete the players who havent seen significant time, especially the walkons.   Also, Delete the assistant coaches.   So basically, I'd say keep the ones that averaged 20 minutes or more.  WP:BIO states that "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports."   NCAA basketball is the highest level of amateur basketball Corpx 16:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At the very least, you should keep the article on assistant coach Mike Hopkins because he has "played in a fully professional league" when he played in the CBA. Chengwes 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But the sport is Basketball, which is a professional sport, both in the USA and in several other countries. In no way can it be considered an "amateur sport", and therefore if none of these guys have played a professional game, Delete. - fchd 17:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did heard of Devendolf, but he's in my opinion is a wait and see until he reaches the NBA type of guy. I just left a comment on the WP:BIO talk about removing the highest level of amateur sports sentence, as seriously hundreds of thousands of people will get articles with that guideline, that is probaly the most commonly broken out of all the WP:BIO guidelines. There is no point of having that sentence. Jaranda wat's sup 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But "highest level of amateur sports" is still in the sentence, right? Until there is a higher threshold in WP:BIO, I stand by my keep. Chengwes 07:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is actually a discussion that has already taken place on such players as Louie McCroskey and Matt Gorman. All of these players compete in Division I college basketball, and thus meet the requirement of having "played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." There is a good post from the Matt Gorman article that neatly summarizes why all of these articles should be left in place: "Members of U.S. Division I men's college basketball receive national coverage from third party reliable sources, without regards to how good they are, how many points they score, or how many starts they get. This is what notability guidelines for biography are meant to ensure. Attempting to winnow top ranked players from also-rans is going to raise PoV issues and falls outside the scope of notability guidelines as currently written." While I can appreciate you trying to change the rules on WP:BIO guidelines, they are currently written the way they are, and until someone changes it, I don't see why these articles should be removed. Thank you. Chengwes 05:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * McCroskey AFD should have been relisted and clearly not closed as a non-admin keep. Gorman is notable for being playing in the USA National team. Most of these mentions are trivial mentions like Player Fu scored 10 points today. The current notabilty guidelines for college athetes is the most broken thing I have ever seen. They aren't proffessional. Jaranda wat's sup 06:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See, this is where it gets trickey, then. If you say Gorman is a keep because he played on the USA National Team, then, for sure, Johnny Flynn, Antonio Jardine and Rick Jackson should be keeps because they all played for Team USA, as well. And what about Andy Rautins? He played for the Canadian National team. Are you saying that Team USA is more notable than Team Canada? Going back to the discussion I started on your talk page, if you're going to keep guys like Kevin Love in Wikipedia, then I think guys like Devendolf (it's actually spelled 'Devendorf' for future reference) who is a former McDonald's All-American as well as a 2006 Big East Honorable Mention, should be retained. It's a very arbitrary line you're trying to draw here. Chengwes 06:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. In the USA, members of Division I NCAA men's basketball teams play on a national stage.  Each member of the team receives national (or at least regional) media coverage by reliable, third-party sources, which is what our notability guidelines for people are meant to guarantee.  Trying to determine who's a star and who's unlikely to see much court time is an invitation to speculation by Wikipedia editors, of the sort we're institutionally committed to avoid. All Division I men's college basketball players therefore compete on the highest level of their amateur sport,  and as such meet current notability guidelines.  In fact, my personal opinion is that college basketball in the USA is the real game.  Professional NBA basketball is a grotesque parody of it, designed to diminish tactical aspects and defensive options.  The pro game has a very short shot clock and restrictions on zone defense, IMO because its promoters have decided that what the fans want to see are prima donna stars taking contortionist slam dunks, rather than teamwork and defensive play.  College basketball is at any rate the interesting game, and in these parts has a lot bigger following than pro basketball.  Here in the area of Louisville, Kentucky, at least, college basketball has  hundreds of thousands of vocal fans who proclaim their allegiances on T-shirts, flags, and bumper stickers.  The local TV stations routinely run hour long specials on the local teams throughout the season, more if they get into the tournament.  Pro basketball gets only slightly more attention than ice hockey, which simply is not played here.  When I moved to this area from Canada, this was a bit of culture shock.  I was more than slightly taken aback that such attention was paid to basketball at all.  Up there, basketballs were pressed into service to kick around the schoolyard when we ran out of soccer balls.  This cultural difference may exist elsewhere; here, college ball is a very, very big deal; pro ball not so.  At least the view from Indiana is that Division I men's basketball players are ipso facto notable; they get less attention, rather than more, when they turn pro. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think the walk-ons pass the "significant coverage from independent sources" bar?  I dont think its subjective to apply the "significant coverage from independent sources" to these players.  Corpx 16:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's one local source, what about this Keep everyone else delete the walk-ons Jaranda wat's sup 23:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree to that. I feel like every scholarship player at Syracuse has received significant press coverage because they are among the top high school players in the country. I can't say the same about the walk-ons. Chengwes 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, I do think that walk-ons pass the "significant coverage from independent sources" bar. They are, at the barest minimum, mentioned as members of the team roster in the national sports media; and even the walk-ons usually receive some court time (after a blowout game, typically), giving them independently reported statistics on playing time, goals, assists, and so forth.  Their articles may necessarily be shorter than the articles of players who contribute more frequently, but nothing in our notability guidelines says that they are excluded by being walk-ons.  If someone has the energy to write articles about these members, let them. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL the person is not yet notable and sorely lacks any kind of mention by non-trivial sources. Burntsauce 17:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about just Jake Presutti or the entire basketball squad? I think we need to make it clear when we say "delete" or "keep" who exactly we're talking about. From this, it sounds like you're just talking about the walk-on, Jake Presutti. Chengwes 17:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Even Jake has received significant coverage from independent sources. I think this is what happens when you dont have a good football program ;) Corpx 17:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: On further inspection, it seems that Paul Harris was previously nominated for deletion, but the result of that discusison was keep. I think we should remove the AfD tag from that page. Chengwes 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add a good quote from the Paul Harris AfD discussion that I think is very relevant here: "I'm really not sure how one can argue that he fails to meet WP:BIO. The WP:BIO guidelines actually quite specifically include American college sports athletes. So there you have it, right there. But even if you want to get stricter than that, he's not just any college athlete, but plays at the highest level (NCAA Division I) of the sport of amateur men's basketball, in one of that level's top conferences (The Big East), for one of that conference's (and indeed the entire sport of men's college basketball's) elite programs (Syracuse University), and he was actually one of the most highly-touted and watched prospects in the country entering this season (though his play in this first season admittedly didn't fully bear that out). As such a top prospect, he's also definitely been covered by independent secondary sources, like Sports Illustrated. As I see it, he's easily notable per WP:BIO. If one feels the WP:BIO guidelines are too loose in that area, I'd actually agree with that, but as they stand today, one cannot say he fails to meet them. The article is just poorly written and sourced."


 * Keep. As has been established above, Division I basketball players from an elite program like Syracuse are specifically and clearly notable per WP:BIO, as the team receives significant third-party press coverage both locally (Orange basketball is arguably the biggest team in upstate NY aside from the Bills and Sabres and gets covered accordingly) and nationally. This should be enough of a reason to keep. Additionally, another good piece of supporting evidence is that we cannot attempt to define who is a star and who isn't. Like Chengwes alludes to, it raises POV issues to say that player X is more notable than player Y because, in essence, the coach plays them more. As long as they are both on a college basketball roster, X and Y are equally notable from an objective standpoint. We cannot delete articles based on us as fans speculating whether or not a player is a "star" or if they will be drafted. Slic e NYC (Talk) 00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems there needs to be some clarification here since this is a discussion page for the deletion of an entire basketball team. There seem to be four tiers of votes that are taking place:
 * Tier One: Delete just the walk-on, Jake Presutti.
 * Votes (3): Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste, Burntsauce, Chengwes
 * Vicarious Votes (6): Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste, Burntsauce, Chengwes, Jaranda, Corpx, fchd
 * Tier Two: Delete those who aren't "stars" on the team, which Corpx suggested. Quite honestly, this is a very tough standard to set, but I think under this system, the possible starters should be kept: Josh Wright, Eric Devendorf, Andy Rautins, Arinze Onuaku, Johnny Flynn, Paul Harris and Rick Jackson. Those that would be deleted are: Antonio Jardine, Kristof Ongenaet and Sean Williams. Again, this is just a complete guess at who's going to start next season.
 * Votes (2): Jaranda, Corpx; Kubigula
 * Vicarious Votes (3): Jaranda, Corpx, fchd
 * Tier Three: Keep the entire team because they have competed at the "highest level of amateur sports."
 * Votes (2): Smerdis of Tlön, SliceNYC
 * Tier Four: Delete the entire team wholesale.
 * Votes (1): fchd
 * (As another side note, there is the whole issue about the Assistant Coaches, which has mostly been left alone.)
 * Would you mind just individually listing these, Jaranda?

This is the difficulty of "mass deleting." So I think all votes that are in the next few days should be used under this system to keep a clean record of who is voting for what. Chengwes 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tier Two, the backups should be deleted, the top three players I clearly endorse deleting are Jake Presutti, Kristof Ongenaet who I'm not convinced about notability of him, as 6th best recruit in the class, Arinze Onuaku, and Rob Murphy (basketball) who looks like a graduated student assistant. Keep the obvious starters, with one thing. If they never reach the pros, we could always rediscuss them for deletion. I'm not closing it as I did the nomination, and deletions are still possible. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One other thing I'd point out -- if you're going to keep Matt Gorman on the grounds he played for Team USA, then you should also vote to keep Antonio Jardine, Rick Jackson and, especially, Johnny Flynn. It's Flynn that I'm really bothered by because he clearly is notable given that he's on Team USA and has just as much coverage as all of the other McDonald's All Americans from 2007. Also, following this logic, you should keep Andy Rautins, because he played for Team Canada in the same tournament. Chengwes 19:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't cross all of them out. Doing it now Jaranda wat's sup 20:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Rob Murphy (basketball) when you get a chance. I beefed up his biography. Also, there's a better-than-good chance that Arinze Onuaku will be the starting center this year because he's the upper classmen of all of Syracuse's centers. Chengwes 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per the "tier two" option. This seems about the right balance - keep the starters and delete the prospects, benchwarmers and assistant coaches (unless, of course, they can be shown to meet WP:N).-- Kubigula (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2007 (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.