Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Williams (basketball, born 1988)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sean Williams (basketball, born 1988)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable enough an amateur/ NCAA basketball player. At an appropriate level (NCAA Div 1) but not a starter or statistical leader. Mayumashu (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2009 (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." GoCuse44 (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So all NCAA Div. 1 basketball players, regardless of the school, meet notability requirements? Mayumashu (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. 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. 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. 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. GoCuse44 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Actually, NO. Nobody is entitled to his own article simply because he plays on a college basketball team, even if it's an elite program like Syracuse.  There are more than 250 NCAA Division I men's basketball teams, each with a dozen players and nothing that gives each player a no-questions-asked, beyond-debate, "right" to an article.  WP:ATHLETE gives an inherent notability to athletes playing on a "fully" professional team (such that if Williams plays even one game in the NBA someday, he would be entitled), but there is no similar provision for athletes on a college team.  Some have made the argument that the "highest level of amateur competition" clause means that anyone on a team that plays at the highest amateur level would get a bye, but it's not been successful so far in debates over college football players.  Sean Williams, just like the other 12 persons listed on the current Orangemen template, has to establish his notability just like anyone else.  He's not prohibited from showing that he is notable enough for an article, but he most certainly is not entitled to one. Mandsford (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I think NCAA Division I players are notable in general, but, as with other subjects, articles can only be written on those for whom there is non-trivial coverage in multiple third-party sources; otherwise, it's impossible to write a verifiable article. I think this particular player is on the borderline for there being enough sources to write at least a short article, based on a quick search. --Delirium (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The NCAA=Notability is horse shit, but this player was reported on by ESPN and other reliable sources.I see 3 non-syracuse citations, seems to establish marginal Notability. ThuranX (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Player is on a big school that receives significant media attention on television and the internet, deserves his own article. --MrShamrock (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Flunks WP:ATHLETE. Isn't even notable on the Syracuse team, where he can't crack the rotation on a 16-man roster, and the Syracuse team doesn't play at the "highest level."  It's no more "POV" to say he doesn't meet WP:N standards than any of the dozens of deletions made every day.  Are we going to start including people cut from NFL training camp before they see a single snap because it's the POV judgment of the coach that the player isn't good enough for the NFL?  Is someone really going to want to use Wikipedia to look up the third-string center on Syracuse ten years from now?  Which editor is going to do the research to include the last forty third-string Syracuse centers, not to mention the last 4000 Division I third-string centers? THF (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2009 (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.