Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rondae Hollis-Jefferson


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Rondae Hollis-Jefferson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH. WP:TOOSOON John from Idegon (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Is this a joke? Hollis Jefferson was a first team all PAC 12 selection. He is likely going to be a first round selection in the NBA draft. He clearly meets GNG. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 01:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This looks like trying to get a jump on things. He was named to All-Pac-12 one year. Otherwise, the critical line is that he announced himself for the draft as a sophomore. Had he not done that, I doubt anyone would be writing this article. "Projected" to be a first round pick is the very definition of CRYSTALBALL. Remember Bobby Hurley, if you don't remember any of the dozens of "projected to be"s who weren't. If none of that works, remember that articles follow, not lead. Hithladaeus (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bobby Hurley met GNG long before he was ever drafted by the NBA. Rikster2 (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You do understand the point I was making. I hope I don't have to spell it out for you. A "projected" first round pick is not a first round pick. A first round pick is not a successful player. Writing an article as soon as a sophomore announces his eligibility for the draft might be common practice, but it's a violation of the guidelines. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But this player meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, so it most certainly not a violation of guidelines.The article could have been written at almost any point in this last season. Wikipedia notability is based on independent media coverage of individuals, not any certain award or achievement. Rikster2 (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at NCOLATH. The nominator said the article failed it, and it did/does. Furthermore, switching the rationale for college athletes away from their area of notability to "just got coverage" is ridiculous and does not make any sense at all. If he were not playing basketball for Arizona, how much coverage would he have? Right. Therefore, NCOLATH applies. It has to apply. Otherwise, we're saying, "Well, players from Notre Dame all get articles, no matter what, because of the media center there, and players from Seton Hall, because they're in the New York media market, definitely get articles the moment they start playing, because there will be RS." We don't switch to GNG because the "power" schools get articles written about everyone down to the team trainer. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not "switching" to GNG. The sport-specific guidelines only exist to guide editors about which figures will probably meet GNG.  There are many more athletes (and actors and government officials and writers) who are notable even if they don't meet their topic-specific guidelines, which can never anticipate all cases.  Also, sources must be independent of the school/conference to meet GNG anyway, so if the athlete is getting notable coverage from the independent press (like major newspapers and national sports media), they go beyond just being promoted by their school.  Rikster2 (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep he absolutely meets WP:GNG based on his college career and the funny thing is that by the time this AfD takes his course he will have already been drafted in the first round of the NBA draft, for which he is a lock. That isn't my reason to keep, but I am pointing it out because only on Wikipedia would people push to delete an article to have it re-created a day or two later.  Rikster2 (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be more specific, I think 2 of the first three references on the article already are independent sources, and the SBNation one is on the border (that site is a hybrid of journalism and blogs). But if you don't like those sources, then there is this and this and this and this and this.  Seriously, this isn't all that close. Rikster2 (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia, it's a mad race to tune into a news and write an article as quickly as possible, whether it has information in it or not, too. This leads to disaster. It leads to AfD being full of "absolute lock" pro sportsball players who are in high school. It's not too much to ask for people to wait for athletes to actually get drafted or get an individual honor or achievement of national rank. This sophomore played well, but he did not get the Naismith, for example, so why reward this author for jumping the gun because you agree with the "absolute lock" and punish the other punters who are equally sure that their local hero is going to be the greatest name in athletic history? (By the way, getting drafted doesn't pass the bar, either. An athlete has to play at the professional level.) Hithladaeus (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Because this player meets WP:GNG. Do you disagree with this?  If so, why? Please make a policy-based argument. Rikster2 (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The player fails NCCOLATH and fails BIO. The nominator was correct about that. However, you and others wish to hector the nominator for making a proper nomination per policy. First, you and others claimed that there was no policy reason for the nomination, so I pointed it out. I remind you that the nomination was legitimate, but you seem to move to "keep" because you personally agree that the player will soon pass. That's not a policy exemption. Now, you argue that the article should be evaluated solely by GNG. Well, the athlete's article fails NCCOLATH and BIO. Please don't accuse nominators and people who disagree of outlandish behavior. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I do not argue that he will "soon" pass. I argue that he passes GNG right now and also soon will pass WP:BASKETBALL (as first- and second-round NBA draft picks fall under that sport notability guideline).  He probably also meets the third provision of WP:NCOLLATH in that he "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." you have no guideline-based argument here. Also, I didn't "accuse" the nominatior of anything.  I assume it's a good faith nomination, just as you should assume good faith about my motives. My comment about the draft coming up was a general observation that the timing (which I have no idea if the nominatior was even aware of) makes this a bit silly since the article will meet a sport-specific guideline in 4 days. Rikster2 (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant that you assumed he would soon pass NCOLLATH, which, indeed, you say. Saying I have no guideline-based argument multiple times doesn't change the fact that I was applying NCOLLATH, where the figure does not pass. He had not won an individual award. There was no documentation of reliable sources on his individual honors. Being all PAC-12 is fine, but it doesn't qualify. I assume good faith and literacy with the nominator, because the article itself said that he was expected to be a "lock" for a first round draft pick. In fact, that's the very language that makes this such a terrible article and signals so clearly that it's CRYSTALBALL. My argument was, is, and continues to be that NCOLLATH is a refinement of GNG and that the article is TOOSOON. I object to people waiving TOOSOON simply because they agree with the inevitability of it (I've watched a lot of NBA draft days). It's far too high a price to pay to license the thousands of junk articles that would follow by weakening this standard. Go ahead, though, and repeat that I "have no guideline-based argument." It won't be truer. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he will soon pass NCOLLATH. I said he would soon pass NBASKETBALL.  But, in fact the third provision of NCOLLATH is "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." He probably does pass that today, although that isn't what I was arguing.  The article does not claim he is any sort of lock for the draft, that section has been rewritten to be fact-based. BTW, he does actually pass WP:BIO based on the sources in the article and those I have posted here. Rikster2 (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you walked by a magazine rack at a major book store? There are, without any exaggeration, five to ten glossy magazines per conference of college sports that publish each month on the glorious glories of the incredibly play of the incredibly players. They get their information from reporters, I suppose, and from sports information offices. Add to those the dozens of local publications, and, as I said, getting iRS on every player at a power conference team would be easy. GNG would be a breeze for every starter on each football team, and every high school athlete merely committing to Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Michigan State, etc. GNG can't trump NCOLATH and yet be more restrictive, and yet, there it is. That doesn't even get into the draft-day jumping articles, of which this is one. Look at the practice of Wikipedia authors. Look at the "movie" articles created as soon as a gossip blog mentions a name. I remember how well Hollis-Jefferson played. I've watched a lot of brilliant play from young players over the years. This article remains predictive in several important respects. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not enough for you to believe that the sport-specific guidlines supersede GNG. Can you produce some consensus discussion that points to this? Because I have been a part of AfD discussions where people meeting the SSG have been deleted because they didn't meet GNG and also ones (like this one) where the figure can be argued not to meet SSG (though I'd point to that 3rd provision of NCOLLATH and argue RHJ meets it) and yet are kept because they meet GNG.  At the end of the day, GNG overrides.  If you want to suggest otherwise, you really need to offer up more than your opinion. But I'm out on this discussion.  I believe the case will stand on its own merits when it's all said and done. Rikster2 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to piggy back on Rikster's point, WP:NCOLLATH is merely a subsection of WP:ATHLETE. The beginning of WP:ATHLETE states, "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." (emphasis mine). That makes it pretty clear that 1) GNG is still the main standard, and 2) meeting either GNG or sport specific can be used. Failure to meet one of the two is not grounds for deletion. If that is not clear enough, please refer to question one of the FAQ at the top of the page on WP:ATHLETE. That states explicitly that sport specific guidelines do not replace GNG. Hithladaeus, if you would like to see GNG become secondary to sport specific guidelines, that discussion can be started, but until that happens and the status quo changes, GNG is the standard, and this article should be kept. SCMatt33 (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Adding on to what Editorofthewiki said...if a player Hollis-Jefferson's caliber should not have a Wikipedia article, a lot of deleting needs to be done in the college basketball section. TempleM (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep For same reasons listed by others. WP:NCOLLATH should probably only be used outside of DI basketball and FBS football as those sports receive a higher level of coverage, making the achievement level within the sport necessary for notability lower. Perhaps we need to consider creating a notibility guideline specifically for college basketball. SCMatt33 (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then let's alert the press offices at all of the D-1 schools, because we can expect an article on every single prospect. I believe that's the situation that NCOLATH sought to remedy. I believe UNC, Duke, NC State, all have some pretty good basketball players, and not every one of them has an article. Wake Forest players should, too! Then all the people who play football for Florida State definitely need an article. Then.... Trust me: there is a press office at each school designed to generate RS for the athletes. There are about 15-50 magazines on the racks that exist solely for talking about "hot prospects" and "scouting reports" in college, and they'll be happy to write articles about "best blocking fullbacks in the SEC." No matter how much you may agree that this article is warranted, switching to GNG is a bad idea for college athletes. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly what I was proposing. Based on what it takes in college basketball to receive individual attention, the standard needs to be lower than winning a national award or being inducted into the college HOF. I would think that every player who is all-conference in a power 5 league will meet GNG. Remember thats's all that other notability guidelines are, a rule of thumb for a particular sport that provides a quick guidance to determine whether GNG will likely be met. At the end of the day, no sports notability guideline overrides GNG. If an individual meets GNG, it does not matter if WP:NCOLLATH or WP:BASKETBALL are met as long as GNG is met. Rickster2 has clearly shown that there are plenty of sources for Hollis-Jefferson to meet GNG. That being said, the points you raise about "hot prospects" and not every player from a prominent team meeting GNG are absolutely true, but I think that we need to have a discussion about where that line is given that a player like Hollis-Jefferson, who obviously meets GNG does not pass the threshold for WP:NCOLLATH or WP:BASKETBALL. SCMatt33 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Rikster's explanation. I also believe it meets GNG. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Rondae is already considered a first round talent as it is (with further evidence pertaining that he's an invited Green Room guest for the 2015 NBA Draft). Even if his offense was really faulty, he does have considerable defensive skills to make up for shortcomings for at least the short-term. Furthermore, we have plenty of articles on players that had never even touched the NBA at all, let alone were lucky enough to get on there in the first place. And don't get me started on the quality of articles we allow for some of the really old school NBA (or should I say BAA) players that we decide to keep for one reason or another. If a guy like Rondae Hollis-Jefferson really deserves to have his article deleted for whatever reason, then there should be a lot more articles that need to be looked at as well. - AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we please remove this from deletion now? I don't think Portland Trail Blazers Brooklyn Nets fans appreciate that one of their selections has an deletion consideration on their latest first rounder now. - AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. Got drafted in NBA, certainly notable, not too soon now (maybe back then), and everything above. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to close as "Keep" - Now that he has been drafted in the first round of the 2015 NBA draft he meets WP:NBASKETBALL. I move to close this as "Keep" because no one has argued he doesn't meet GNG and now he also meets a sport-specific guideline too. Rikster2 (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2015 (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.