Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perry Jones


 * 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. It seems fairly undisputed that this individual fails the specific WP:ATHLETE but passes the general notability guideline through sufficient obscure but non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Ultimately, both our guidelines and the opinions of participants here are split, and there is no consensus to delete. Given that the article is adequately sourced to avoid WP:BLP issues, there is no harm in defaulting to keep. ~ mazca  talk 19:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Perry Jones

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable person who fails WP:ATHLETE. Has yet to compete at college level, let alone professional level. Scjessey (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - There are other pages about athletes who haven't competed at a collge level that have been around for awhile such as Michael Gilchrist, Seantrel Henderson, and Brandon Knight So I dont see why this one is up for deletion. it has sources that make him notable. Ice (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If what you say is true, those articles should also be nominated for deletion. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources as demonstrated by this Google News Archive search. Some sample articles include this one from sportingnews.com and this article from The Virginian-Pilot, as well as this and this from ESPN. Notability is fully established because WP:GNG supersedes WP:ATHLETE. Cunard (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:ATHLETE ... the general notability guideline would, in the United States, make (roughly) the top 100 top high school athletes in football and basketball (in each state) worthy of articles, not to mention a few other top athletes in badminton, cross country, bowling, etc, which is clearly not the intention of the policy, not to mention the winners of Teen Jeopardy, state spelling bees, people who raise the prize heifer at the state fair, local junior miss beauty pageants, etc, etc. Also WP:OTHERSTUFF needs to be avoided in defending articles.  The article needs to stands on its own merits.  It is important to remember that notability is forever, so if the article stands, and this kid gets hurt next month and never plays again, we have an article about a kid who did nothing more than have a pretty good high school career.  I cannot believe that WP:N ever was meant for that ... part of the reason we have WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE, just like Harrison Barnes, Brandon Knight do today, or like John Wall, Avery Bradley, O. J. Mayo, etc. did by the time they were added. --bender235 (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I frequently read a comment that someone "meets WP:ATHLETE", but it consists of two sentences and a footnote, and I can't see what part of it is applicable here. Persons who are inherently notable under that rule are: "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.[8]  People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships."  The [8] footnote adds "Participation in and, in most cases, winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc."  Which part of WP:ATHLETE does this person qualify under?  Mandsford (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:ATHLETE is supplemental and does not replace WP:GNG. The coverage in reliable sources is sufficient to establish notability, as multiple independent reliable sources have taken note of this individual. -- Whpq (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, gazillions of kids get mentioned in their local papers, and these ranking sites are unacceptable as sources; they are highly specialized directories. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that ranking sites are unreliable sources. However, in this situation there are reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject; see this one from Sporting News and this article from The Virginian-Pilot, as well as this and this from ESPN. Neither Sporting News nor ESPN are local sources, so your concern there is invalid. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Online specialized sports columns are unconvincing. They say things that can't make anybody notable, it boils down to "he plays high school sports really well." Abductive  (reasoning) 08:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sports columns from reliable sources are sufficient to establish notability. When high school athletes garner the necessary media coverage they are notable. If high schools sports were insignificant in the United States, ESPN and Sporting News would not devote numerous articles to high school athletes. While it can be argued that high school athletes, by virtue of their youth, are inherently non-notable, this argument is invalid because national publications deem the subject's accomplishments to be worthy of reporting. Cunard (talk) 09:04, 15 January 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.