Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie McDonald


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Leslie McDonald

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't meet notability standard for college athletes. Subject has not won awards, set records, nor has he received significant enough national news coverage as an individual. Rikster2 (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  —Rikster2 (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Being a sub or average player on a great team doesn't make you inherently notable. However, being a great player on a great team does, but since this is not the case, it fails sports notability. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the post! While being a "great player on a great team" might seem like the perfect criteria for college athlete notability, wikipedia has already established policy here: WP:ATHLETE.  I encourage you to check it out.  Have a great week!  -Blueman33 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Watch your tone. This is the only time I'll mention that. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon me? -Blueman33 (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stepping in I personally didn't read anything wrong with Blueman's "tone" per se, however it should be noted that WP:ATHLETE is a guideline and not a policy. (By the way, if anyone has ever mis-read "tone" before that would be me!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction, Paul. -Blueman33 (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Easy Keep. WP:ATHLETE is very clear as to what makes college athletes notable: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics."  It then gives three examples that would fall under this criteria (not exhaustive).  This individual has received significant media coverage beyond merely repeating his statistics, therefore he is notable.  The current article is petty new, and not very well developed yet.  I'll try and post some new refs and info sometime over the next few days.  -Blueman33 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As promised, here are a few refs demonstrating the significant coverage I mentioned: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and eleven. Additionally, there are a lot more out there.  There seems to be even more coverage than with Justin Watts, probably due to McDonald's higher profile recruitment and more significant contributions to the team. -Blueman33 (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Per Articles_for_deletion, noting that Blueman33 is the article's creator. —Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete unless references are added - If there is so much coverage, it should be easy to add references, no? --Selket Talk 18:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Selket, just posted a few refs above. I hope they help.  -Blueman33 (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several references in the article. We should not be deleting articles because nobody has yet taken the substantial time required to add multiple references. It's not as "easy" as you say to integrate all the additional refs found during an AfD.  I will sometimes do it myself for an article that really piques my interest, and that can take an hour or more to do it right.  That should not be required to keep an article.  If the subject has sufficient notability, the article should be kept.  The article need not be perfect to avoid deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG by not having enough discriminate sources (Independent_sources). Most of the sources cited in discussion are local coverage. Does not match the spirit of "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." in Notability_(sports).  The number of sources is the product of the sources' indiscriminate coverage, not the notability of the player's accomplishments. —Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bagumba, I think you're missing the point of Independent_sources. It wasn't meant to remove all non-national media from being able to establish notability.  Essentially, what you're saying is that ALL newspapers and television stations in North Carolina, and a few outside NC, are indiscriminate sources (because we've already established that is at least the minimum extent of McDonald's coverage).  So are they indiscriminate sources?  The two examples given are travel guides and small town newspapers.  None of the reference used fall into either of those two categories.  It goes on to say that indiscriminate sources may be "outdated, self-published, or not have a reputation for fact-checking."  Again, that is not the case for a single one of the references used above.  All of the references used here are reputable, reliable, and known for their fact-checking.  Therefore, they may be used to help establish notability.  Additionally, "gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team" is NOT the notability criteria from Notability_(sports).  It's actually that "college athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics."  -Blueman33 (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This player is currently only notable to North Carolina fans and is evidenced by the lack of coverage outside of sources targeted towards a Tar Heel fan base. The difference in opinion can be summed as the actual written principles versus the perceived spirit of the principles. There are inconsistencies with some principles in WP (I mean everything is a constant work in progress, right?) and I believe this is one of them.  I'm inclined to think the original intent was not to prop up a generally non-notable subject simply by number of sources found which is a product of the team's fanbase. —Bagumba (talk)


 * Keep here's an |example of an article in a San Diego paper about a North Carolina athlete in a game against Rutgers... the article features the subject. That coupled with the many other instances of coverage seems to show me that the individual surpasses WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * MacDonald is not the main subject of the article, the Tar Heels are. This is routine coverage of a game. WP:GNG says ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." —Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - per multiple instances of non-trivial coverage specifically on the individual. Rlendog (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Paul M.'s find would seem to meet the guideline of national media attention as an individual. The AP story was picked up in newspapers across the nation -- not just the San Diego Times-Union, but Kansas City, Atlanta, Baltimore, etc.; one could argue that Atlanta and Baltimore cover ACC teams, or that the story is about the game rather than being a profile of McDonald.  However, what I see in this and other stories is the national media identifying McDonald as an "up and coming" athlete.  Others may disagree about the significance of the coverage, but I think that this is in the spirit of the guideline on college athletes, an interpretation of the subject specific guideline in WP:ATHLETE.  Mandsford 17:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul M's San Diego source was routine coverage of a game and not significant coverage of the player himself. His name was mentioned twice. —Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per the non-trivial coverage cited by Blueman and Paulmcdonald. Also, see my rationale at  the related AfD for the other NC player. Cbl62 (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete McDonald is getting media coverage, but mainly as a member of the team. There are some brief mentions of his high school exploits in local papers, but that hardly qualifies as substantial coverage. Is it possible McDonald will become notable in the future? Sure, but not now. (By the way, we really need to reform our standards on college basketball players. How about a starter on a major team or a star on a smaller one?) ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 21:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Commment - Of course he is getting coverage as member of the team, his notability is as a basketball. There would be a problem if the sources were by the team, since those would not be independent.  But getting significant coverage by independent sources as a member of a team is not. Rlendog (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports). Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, the length of this discussion seems to indicate this topic needs more explicit guidelines. —Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The articles either fail WP:ROUTINE or WP:DISCRIMINATE I don't see any significant coverage beyond these. Note I just mentioned WP:ROUTINE in the athlete page under college sports, it is mentioned several other places including the opening paragraphs but I agree that the additional clarification for college athletics would be useful. --MATThematical (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - How is this indiscriminate or routine?  It is a decent length article specifically about McDonald, not passing mentions or a game summary or a stat collection. Rlendog (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seven points per game playing for one of the country's biggest basketball schools. A quick Google search found articles about him specifically from the Memphis and Winston-Salem daily newspapers as well as stuff from basketball websites. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There is another AfD of a North Carolina player Articles_for_deletion/Justin_Watts where we're basically having the same discussion. -Blueman33 (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: The subject has not met criterion 3 "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team", does not meet WP:ATH in letter nor spirit of the guideline. The bar for college athletes is, and should be set high. J04n(talk page) 11:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - student sportsman. Basketball is a professional sport and there is no indication that he has achieved anything of note in professional sport nor do the references meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2011 (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.