Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omm'A Givens

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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omm'A Givens[edit]

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

Article subject hasn't met notability guidelines since 1995, years before Wikipedia was created. Nothing new or notable about article subject anywhere since the 1995 championship season. There is nothing meaningful in online sources on him in the last 18 years. Not even in the last 15 years, the last 10 years, the last five years. He never made any kind of "splash" after he played in the championship game for UCLA in the mid-1990s. As far as basketball is concerned, his career beyond that season didn't happen. Seems to me to soundly fail to meet WP:GNG per WP:1E. -- ψλ ● ✉ 04:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY. There are 2 independent, reliable sources on the short article already. I am sure more exist. Meets WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Captain Raju. Past notability is still notability. Ross-c (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Playing on a college team that won a championship over twenty years ago equals WP:1E. A 1E bio subject doesn't meet GNG. -- ψλ ● ✉ 18:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He meets WP:GNG, do a Google search. Or, better yet, let me help you out with this and this and this. Rikster2 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1E. If he had gone on to play pro-ball, even for just one year, I could agree. But playing on one winning college championship team 22 years ago and that's his only claim to fame? Still not seeing how that satisfies GNG. -- ψλ ● ✉ 23:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if he played pro ball (which he did, in the D-League) if he meets GNG. Wikipedia notability guidelines are clear on this. It's also clear that how long ago the person met GNG doesn't matter. And he meets GNG by virtue of being covered specifically by reliable, independent sources such as those in the article and those I linked in this discussion. He's not notable only because he was on a championship team, so one event is irrelevant. Rikster2 (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D-League is semi-pro, is it not? Question (because I don't know the answer) how long did he play for and do you have reliable sources to support it? The "coverage"you mention is 20 years old. There is nothing on him that is in the last 15 years, the last 10 years, the last five years, or currently or that comes from a reliable secondary source. How does that qualify the article subject for meeting GNG? If the article truly does meet GNG and the article subject is not 1E, fine, we should probably keep it. But, I'm just not seeing it. You have to convince me with real evidence that it meets GNG and he's more than a 1E rather than just saying over and over that the article meets GNG. -- ψλ ● ✉ 00:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is professional, but it doesn't matter. No one is arguing that he meets WP:NBASKETBALL. He meets WP:GNG because multiple major papers have written in-depth articles about Givens specifically, not just him as a member of a team. Once again, there is absolutely no Wikipedia policy that says a person has to have recent coverage, in fact policy specifically states notability is not temporary, a guideline I linked in my first post on this thread. Also, I don't have to convince you, an admin will make the final call and make it based on policy. I linked three sources in this discussion and two more are on the article, and that's just what is quickly available on-line. Rikster2 (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 4-year college basketball career (plus later time spent playing in the D-League) is definitely not a BLP1E. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Rikster2. In addition, the entire nominating statement flies in the face of WP:NTEMP. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Rikster2. Past notability is still notability. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expanded and improved the article a bit, added infobox and more references. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2017 (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.