Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Gray

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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Gray[edit]

There is a large section of athletes being added. However, many like this, are borderline notable. In addition, editors/authors are not getting the point. This leaves hundreds of borderline/not notable for review and deletion. This example should be used to clarify Wikipedia:Notability (people). On that, editors should be clear enough such that third-party editors, especially those unfamiliar with sports, may make appropriate choices. meatclerk 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current college basketball players could be listed in the article of each team, in this case Pittsburgh Panthers, but they shouldn't have an article to themselves unless they make a lasting impact on the sport. DrKiernan 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considered a NBA draft prospect with sources from nationally published material. --MECU≈talk 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Above user's argument uses three words that indicate this person is not yet notable: considered, draft, prospect. Emeraude 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per WP:BIO "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." one of the criteria is: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played ... at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States." --MECU≈talk 16:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's a major NBA draft prospect who plays college sports, and as such, fits into WP:BIO. This guy is on the banner of the Pitt basketball website [1] and is the Big East's Most Improved Player of the Year [2]. I fail to see how this is non-notable, and as such, he deserves an article. Also, though I am biased towards sports, I am not voting based on bias - I am voting based on Wiki policy which is sourced above by Mecu. Therefore, I vote keep. --Nomader^Talk 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Mecu's reading of WP:BIO subtly distorts the intended meaning of the guideline. The complete sentence is: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States." I think that the intention of this is to allow athletes who play amateur sports, who nevertheless compete at the highest level, to have articles. Basketball is not, from a notability point of view, a mainly amateur sport in the world today. I would argue that notable contemporary basketball players are the people who play the game professionally, and that's the way the guideline was written. Let Gray play a professional game, and then write the article. If he never goes on to put on an NBA uniform, there needs to be more notability than what is shown here. There are far too many college basketball players to give each one his/her own article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Darkspots 02:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think I've distorted anything. I believe you have added additional meaning that isn't in the face of the policy. To say amateur athletes except when there is a professional league isn't in the policy. You are extrapolating meaning and guessing the intended meaning, when it's written plainly that a college athlete in the USA that has played is notable and worthy of an article. I would put some caution on that since some players (ie, offensive linemen) aren't as famous as the other players, but a star center in basketball on the #2 ranked team in the nation certainly is. This article talks about Gray scoring 15 points in a off night. --MECU≈talk 13:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think there is room for reasonable people to differ about this, but I think that the Delete votes are all pretty much arguing that he needs to be a pro to have an article, because he plays basketball, which is what I'm arguing. I don't feel like I'm adding any meaning to argue that basketball is not an amateur sport from a notability point of view. I think the standard of WP:BIO is heavily slanted towards amateurs who compete in non-professional sports and away from amateurs competing in professional ones, and I don't think that's an extrapolation at all. Swimming ain't basketball. That said, I definitely think that this argument that his college record warrants inclusion is a lot stronger than the first argument you made that he is "considered an NBA draft prospect". Darkspots 16:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Will warrant inclusion when and if he gets drafted, but not now. PAWiki 13:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What American college basketball stars deserve pages? Any? Does Tyler Hansbrough deserve a page? Does Josh McRoberts deserve a page? Both are projected to go lower in the draft than Aaron Gray. [[3]]. I think they all deserve pages as being notable college basketball players. This seems to me in agreement with the spirit of the policy. -- Daveahern 04:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with other users that this does indeed meet the spirit of WP:BIO, if not the letter. Besides, when he is drafted in a few months (he's a senior) we'll just have to recreate the article. Although it's not difficult to create articles, it makes little sense to delete an article for the sake of adhering to the letter of a policy when WP:BIO demands that it be recreated in a few short months. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:53, 11 December 2006 (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.