Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Davis (basketball)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Davis (basketball)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Basketball as this is a high school player who has not competed at the highest professional/amateur level. --moreno oso (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are references about him and everything and he is a notable basketball recruit for Kentucky. He and his family have been in the news a lot lately over the accusations that his dad wanted money for him to commit to a school. I dont see why this would be nominated for deletion and Michael Gilchrist wouldn't. Multiple articles have been allowed to stay even while the person was still in High School. Ex: Michael Gilchrist, Harrison Barnes, and Brandon Knight (basketball). Also there were similar discussions for other athletes that had the articles stay. EX: Arthur Brown, Tre` Newton, Kyle Prater, and Perry Jones. Ice (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Michael Gilchrist was much less notable (see Gilchrist AfD) than Anthony Davis, but when the article was up for deletion it was kept with a consensous. There is national coverage for Davis including ESPN, the Chicago Sun-Times, and Rivals.com. Ice (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dear nominator, read the "Basic criteria" first on the guideline you refer to, as it and WP:NOTE apply first, and this clearly passes on that level. Doesn't matter if it was a third grader, if the media wants to cover it, then it is notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable through all of his national coverage from ESPN and other major places. 68.186.14.57 (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — 68.186.14.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I have made multiple edits around wikipedia so I dont know why it just lists todays edits. 68.186.14.57 (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another reason the article should be kept is that WP:GNG supersedes WP:ATHLETE, which I guess is what the person a couple posts above me was saying. Ice (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per WP:GNG:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not."

The theshold for significant coverage independent of the subject has not been met. ----moreno oso (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you are misinterpreting "independent". All of the article's sources are independent of the subject. "Independent" means that the source originates for a third-party not associated with the subject. Since you are quoting from WP:GNG, let me quote the relevant section for you: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. None of the references fall into any of these excluded categories of sources. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes the GNG for me. Dismas|^(talk) 00:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.