Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymar Morgan

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 - there are plenty of reliable sources easily available about this notable college basketball player. I know next to nothing about basketball, but I know my BLP. This AfD has been listed for over two weeks. Would someone please add the sources found herein? Bearian (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raymar Morgan

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

College athlete, fails WP:ATHLETE. No indication of meeting either the general or athlete specific notability requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you will click the provided "search news" link at the top of this AfD, significant third party coverage is readily apparent. Gigs (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep extensive non-trivial third party coverage, thus meets GNG -Drdisque (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that he meets the expectations of WP:ATHLETE for college players. No postseason awards or All-America picks. "Coverage" is no more than can be expected of any player of an elite-level college basketball program. Coverage by recruiting sites is not truly significant coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. As others indicate, there is robust genuine coverage by RSs. I've provided the diffs of same, in both RS articles and books, in my comment below.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per DarkAudit, there isn't any genuine significant coverage, and he likely fails both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Claritas § 13:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have an essay for basketball players and I think the article fails this.Farhikht (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just noticed this while working on 2006 high school boys basketball All-Americans. Note how many times he is mentioned in 2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season. You are penalizing him for having a poorly written article. He is pretty notable. He is as notable as everyone else listed here--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although he is not expected to be chosen in the June 24, 2010 NBA Draft, I thought standard policy on college athletes was to see if they become a pro by waiting for one year after their graduation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough third party coverage and was a crucial player in Michigan State's run to the 2009 Final Four, and until his injury this past season he was a major influence in their successful season as well. I doubt he'll get drafted in the 2010 NBA Draft, but the 2010-11 NBA season doesn't even begin for another four months. Let's wait and see if he gets picked up as an undrafted free agent prior to the start of the season, and if he doesn't then re-list him here. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs a lot of work but he appears notable. Check out this - [1]. This article may help the article out [2]. Remember (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this sentence might be of some use to establish his notability "He's won two straight Big Ten championships...He went to the Sweet 16 his first two years, now he's gone to back-to-back Final Fours. He's scored over 1,000 points, has 800 rebounds, it's just the expectations are so high. And he made the winning free throw. So now I guess what he can do is go out and win a national championship." [3]. Remember (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable collegiate athlete. IMO, a player needs to be at least a first-team all-conference player to meet notability requirements (and even that probably isn't enough) or do something else of note. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Well-referenced in RS books and RS articles, the core test of notability. See, for example, this, this, and this. This isn't even a close call. I would suggest that nom in the future do the required wp:before search.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nature of sports is that there is a lot of media coverage from reliable sources. However, the same coverage is applied to all Division I teams across the country. The fact is, Morgan is an above-average player that hasn't done anything notable compared to other Division I college basketball players. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our standard wp:Basic notability test clearly applies to athletes ("A person is presumed to be notable if he ... has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."). He meets it. Extensive coverage in RSs always, without exception, qualifies a bio for a "keep". With all due respect, your POV that he is "above average that hasn't done anything notable compared to ..." misses the point. That's POV, which impacts not at all the issue of whether he has sufficient RS coverage to qualify for notability under wiki standards. That, he does. And, with all due respect, your personal test, which you set forth above, is not the wikipedia guideline. He so clearly meets the wiki standard that this nom and discussion is actually a waste of time, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The nature of sports", as you put it, creates many people that Wikipedia standards consider notable, because as you noted, sports are extensively covered by the news media. If an individual meets WP:GNG, significant coverage from reliable independent sources, then they are notable to Wikipedia. All Division I athletes do not receive the same amount of coverage, and certainly all do not receive enough to meet WP:GNG. Morgan has. Strikehold (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He passes WP:GNG, for example: Cleveland Plain Dealer, Los Angeles Times, Lansing State Journal, The Detroit News, The Detroit News 2, Scout, ESPN, Norwich Bulletin, MLive 1 (the website of a newspaper company), MLive 2, MLive 3, MLive 4, MLive 5, MLive 6, MLive 7. Strikehold (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2010 (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.