Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NCAA Division I men's basketball players with 13 or more blocks in a game


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

List of NCAA Division I men's basketball players with 13 or more blocks in a game

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails OCAT. What is the difference between a player with 13 blocks and 12?TM 07:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - And what's the difference between 12 blocks and 11? Or 11 and 10? Jrcla2 (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The exclusivity of how many players actually achieve the feat. Akin to List of National Basketball Association players with 12 or more blocks in a game but even fewer occurrences of an event does not make it less notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - We definately should have an article that lists the top amount of blocks per game at the college level. The problem comes with determining where to draw the line.  Draw it too high and you get only one or two names on this list, which makes the list not really useful.  Draw the line too low (like 5 blocks) and you will have a ridiculously long article.  The line at 13 blocks seems good to me.  Ideally, ten blocks would be nice since it is a round number, but I am afraid that would be too big a list. Remember (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "There is no particular reason for choosing "7%", "$30,000", or the 100th episode as cutoff points in these cases. Likewise, a district with 3,800 students is not meaningfully different from one with 4,100 students. A better way of representing this kind of information is to put it in an article such as "List of school districts in (region) by size". Note that Wikipedia allows a table to be made sortable by any column." Wikipedia is not a sports website. There is nothing meaningful about getting 13 blocks in a game, or nothing more meaningful than getting 12 or 14 or 11. This is the definition of arbitrary inclusion, as clearly spelled out by the guidelines.--TM 15:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess we better delete every page on NBA statistical leaders, NCAA Division I men's basketball statistical leaders, the "Records" section of NHL topics, many of the articles on Major League Baseball records, and a lot of the articles found in Category:National Football League lists. I could give myriad more examples. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is totally invalid here and you know that.--TM 06:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Single-game statistical all-time performance lists are notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jrcla2 and Tony. (From looking at the list, I can see why 13 was selected as the number of blocks for inclusion—it takes in all of the top 10 performances plus ties.) — Dale Arnett (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't see deleting an article simply because it has a silly title, and it does have context and it does rely upon more than one source.  However, the limitations of scope are pretty arbitrary, and it's drawn from page 18 of the NCAA Division I men's basketball records that they looked at has a list of players who have had at least 12 blocks during an NCAA Division I men's basketball game between 1985-86 and 2008-09.  The author has chosen to go with at least 13 blocks rather than at least 12.  .   Perhaps some mention can be made of the recordholder in other NCAA divisions and in NAIA, or about performances from prior to 1985; this hasn't necessarily reached its limit.  Mandsford 20:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename perhaps? You could refer to them as having the "highest single-game block totals" or some such thing. --B (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to something like "List of NCAA Division I men's basketball players by single-game blocks" or something like that and explain the criterion for being listed (whatever the decided upon number) in the lead. Strikehold (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, and maybe rename, per above. Yes, 13 is an arbitrary cutoff, but you have to make an editorial decision like that when working on any list of superlatives. Zagalejo^^^ 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Snowball Keep per irrelevant nomination ratioanle. Vodello (talk) 19:21, 24 June 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.