Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabazz Muhammad

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shabazz Muhammad[edit]

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

Delete. Per WP:ATHLETE, "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." I'm seeing coverage of Muhammad, but it is neither substantial nor prolonged. Even though he's at the top of a lot of scouts' lists, I don't see him meeting the Wikipedia notability criteria yet. —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With all due respect, this is sourced: "the number 2 player by Scout.com, and the number 1 player by Rivals.com." Clearly an elite prospect. Carrite (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked #2 of the 2012 class by ESPN.com. Carrite (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masslive.com, online version of The Republican, calls Muhammed "The Nation's Top-Ranked Player" in this very non-"routine" coverage dedicated to him... Carrite (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here's CBSSports.com with some more dedicated coverage to Muhammed. Very much independent and very much non-routine. This is a pretty easy call here as one of the top prep hoops prospects in the United States... Carrite (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The LOS ANGELES TIMES ran a piece on Muhammed's college plans... Carrite (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL is also pontificating on the prospects of their hometown hoops star. Just because an athlete hasn't played professionally doesn't make them non-notable. I'm only starting the third page of a Google search here, I'll lay $10 right now that 100 independent sources could be mustered if necessary... I will leave that to someone else. Very easily passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amateur athletes are not notable enough for Wikipedia. Is Muhammad a great HS player with a lot of press? Yes. Is now the right time to give him a Wikipedia article? No. I'm afraid that WP:ROUTINE fits the bill here. Most of the Top 25 players get the same type of media coverage which makes all the above references WP:ROUTINE. I'm guessing that we need to clearly redefine the qualification for HS athletes as many things have changed an a lot of media coverage is expected on these players making what appears to be extensive coverage but is WP:ROUTINE in my opinion. I did an internet search on Muhammad and yielded results of mostly, statistics, blogs, sports sites, and fan type coverage. Will Muhammad warrant an article once he becomes a college player? Probably so. Is now the right time? Probably not. Jeeves3 (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per "Amateur athletes are not notable enough for Wikipedia." — I'm sure there are many thousands of Olympians who would beg to differ. Mosmof has the correct answer below: while pro athletes are given essentially a free pass, it does not follow that amateur athletes are automatically barred, merely that they have a more serious barrier to inclusion to navigate. In this case, as one of the top of the top prep basketball players in the USA, sources far exceed the mandatory minimum... Carrite (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:ROUTINE doesn't apply here, since the coverage of Muhammad goes beyond recruiting updates, game reports and scouting reports - there's an actual controversy around the subject: NCAA looking into advisers' dealings with top hoops recruit Shabazz Muhammad --Mosmof (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily notable per WP:ATHLETE. --bender235 (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Rankings and such aside, this player is currently the center of controversy over his recruitment/amateur eligibility (as tempest-in-a-teacup-y as it may be), and the subject of considerable coverage (seriously, just do a Google News search). The argument that he doesn't qualify because he's "amateur" is a misreading of WP:ATH. The whole point of WP:ATH is not to exclude amateur athletes, but to include athletes at playing at the highest level of the game who don't meet the standard notability criteria. It doesn't apply in this case. --Mosmof (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2012 Naismith HS Player of the Year, among other things. Zagalejo^^^ 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Zagalejo.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Zagalejo. He's the national high school player of the year fer cryin' out loud. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all. WP standards do not peclude HS players from being notable at all, and Muhammad is about the most notable one. He is getting plenty of coverage in newspapers, sports magazines and in US television becuase he is the #1 recruit in America and because of the recruiting controversey. Rikster2 (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2012 (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.