Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Jennings

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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Jennings

Brandon Jennings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

High school basketball player, lacks notability. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to be plenty of secondary sources available, so passes WP:N. Epbr123 (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and even fits in a category with several others. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources, some of whom have given him praise as a player. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - There may be problems with the article as it stands, but it certainly passes WP:N as is. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to have sufficient claims to notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He's a number 1 prospect.--CastAStone|^(talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not all together sure what it says about our society that a high school player is an easy Keep, but there it is. As such a highly ranked prospect he is notable, as shown by the attention from USA Today, and there's no doubt that others may be found. Xymmax (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• True, but if it weren't for the recent 'one year in college' rule, he'd be playing in the NBA next season. My point being that in the world of basketball, a senior in high school isn't really so young. Meowcicle (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Everything about this person's perceived notability is based on "What he is projected to do in the future", and not actually based on anything notable he has done (yes, leading a high school team to 100 wins may be good, but not notable here). When he is the leading NCAA scorer, or moves up to the NBA, then he is notable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete My reading of Wikiipedia notability guidelines for sports players ([1]) suggests that to qualify he should have either "competed in a fully professional league" or "competed at the highest level in amateur sports". As a school player, he has done neither of these and the rest is crystal ballism. Emeraude (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BIO also states that a person may be deemed notable if they have "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Epbr123 (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete; I went back and forth on this one. The USA Today article is important, but it is not about this player. He is merely included in it. If you look at the article it does not establish notability for him. I think that crystal ball is not overly applicable here, as there are sources predicting the future (which can establish notability) but I agree with Emeraude, above, that even a good player is not notable unless he's in a bigger pond. Epthorn (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Where, then, would an NCAA player fit into Wikipedia's notability guidelines for sports players? The highest level in amateur basketball is the D-League, and if NCAA player articles are in fact allowed (which there are obviously many), what is wrong with having a player that has contractually agreed to be an NCAA player in the next several months? I also disagree with the "crystal ballism" argument. He is the #1 overall prospect according to several highly respected ranking media sources, and even if he were to back out and never play ball beyond high school, that in and of itself would still be an interesting and notable enough story to warrant his article. Meowcicle (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep Notability has been established through multiple, secondary sources not affiliated with the subject. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Sports notability guidelines trump WP:BIO. Article is no great loss either. Come back when he's achieved something worth writing about. --kingboyk (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that sports notability guidelines don't trump WP:N. Epbr123 (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable player. Basketball is not my thing, but he appears to be notable, the stub has good cites, and he's signed with a professional team. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the guideline (not policy) WP: Notability (people) gives the following guidelines regarding the determination of notabiltiy for an athlete:

Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis, and

Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).

It has been established that this athelte is not a professional, and is not in the D league (highest amateur level). With due respect to the supporters, I know a dozen athletes in my area that are the subject of articles on the regional or national level every year, but are certainly not worthy of notability, so I would argue that simply having the sources here is not enough to keep an article, otherwise I fail to see how anyone with a "#1 prospect label given by any large local newspaper does not become the subject of an article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO states "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". This is the reason why people who have only had coverage in local newspapers do not have articles. Brandon Jennings, however, has had state and nationwide coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Two of the sources cited in the articles are lists from sports pages, one of which ranks him 8th, not first, but are not even articles in the sense of providing information other than a subjective ranking. Another two are not about him, but rather his high school team being ranked number one in the nation. The only full article about him is the local paper in Arizona talking about their new player. I would contend that all but one of these articles are "trivial" in nature regarding this player, and the other is a local paper covering him. Again, I 'm not trying to start a fight here. I'm just contending that one local article, and a mention here or there in a national publication does not constitute notability by Wikipedia policy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It depends what counts as local media coverage. Arizona has a larger population than most countries. Epbr123 (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(Comment Factually incorrect. With a popn of 5,130,632 there are 112 countries with a larger population and 109 smaller (including 'self-governing dependent territories which are not really 'countries' as such. There are towns with more people than Arizona. Emeraude (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

(In 2006, Arizona's population was 6,166,318. Your figure was for 2000. Not that it matters :))

(That's what happens when you rely on Wikipedia!!!! Emeraude (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

Agreed again. The only reference explicitly about this player is from the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson. All of the other actual articles are either about his high school team, or a listing of "top prospects", only one of which actually lists him as the "top prospect". The Tucson article appears to only have been written because of his signing a letter of intent with the college found there, making it look more like a local news item. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You've persuaded me that the Arizona Daily Star is local coverage, but I think coverage such as this is still enough. Epbr123 (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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.