Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Hollis

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 delete. czar 23:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Hollis[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. Only source providing significant coverage is The real stars of LaVar Ball’s league are the players chasing a dream. Other sources provide trivial coverage, like stat lines, passing mentions, or at most one quote from Hollis. Runningibis (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. In addition to the SB Nation article, which is significant coverage, there is also the Chicago Sun-Times piece, which isn't specifically about Hollis but gives him some attention. Also there is this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Editorofthewiki: The Chicago Sun-Times article just briefly mentions Hollis, with one quote and three total sentences about him. The Unique Sports article should not even be considered, because it isn't reliable and often publishes puff pieces for the JBA and the Ball family (examples: [1] and [2]). So to me, the only article providing significant coverage is the SB Nation piece, which isn't nearly enough coverage to warrant an article. Given that info, please provide some additional justification for keeping this article. Runningibis (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Everything I see is routine (game summaries, etc) or non-independent. Rikster2 (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NHOOPS by playing in LaVar Ball's fledgling Junior Basketball Association. Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. SBNation can be selectively reliable depending on the writer, but they still use a lot of amateur bloggers. If notability relies strongly on an SBNation source with few other alternative sources of coverage, it's usually an indication to me the subject is not notable.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to the other sources, I was able to dig up this article from the Hutchison News and this profile pice by a former editor at Rivals.com. This article in the Dallas Morning Mews extensively mentions Hollis. There was also an interview with D1 Circuit. Hollis definitely meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”Hoopseen” is a company that puts on HS tournaments (click “About” at the bottom of the page) - it isn’t an independent source. The other article is at least about Hollis and from an independent source, but one fairly short piece about a local boy signing a pro deal doesn’t establish notability IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same concerns about Hoopseen independence. Also not sure about it's reliability, and I'm not comfortable anyways using these niche, non-mainstream sites for notability (unlike projects like pro wrestling). The Dallas Morning News link was a one-off about a youth summer camp he went to for football, which doesn't help build content for his primary basketball career. I had seen the Hutchinson article before in my search, and still do not think it all collectively is enough significant coverage. His college coverage is not sufficient, and his pro career has not been notable.—Bagumba (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way below our absurdly broad notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Why do so many people think every JBA player is notable? This is another case of routine sports coverage and a failure to meet WP:NHOOPS. Sandals1 (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NHOOPS because playing in the fledgling Junior Basketball Association is not in any way notable. The professional career section also relies heavily on individual game scores and personal scores, which make Hollis seem more important then he is, when in reality his as yet minor pro career is just starting out. The sources in the article are almost all either brief mentions or WP:ROUTINE coverage. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2018 (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.