Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Watts

Justin Watts

Justin Watts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Player doesn't meet notability guidelines for college athletes. He plays for a prominent team, but doesn't receive any significant coverage as an individual. Not even a heavy rotation player. Rikster2 (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails sports notability guidelines. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Easy Keep. Subject exceeds notability criteria for athletes and has received significant media coverage. Additionally, he is a heavy rotation player for a major division 1 college basketball team (1 of 8 players on his team) and has started multiple games. Refs from his recruitment: one, two, three, four, five, six. Refs from his college career: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. I found those 15 refs in about 5 minutes on google. Several are features on Watts. Again, easy keep. -Blueman33 (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Averaging less than 10 minutes per game doesn't make you a heavy rotation player. Watts is the last scholarship guy off the bench for UNC. Some human interest stories from the local paper don't make him notable. Come on, guy - I am a Tar Heel fan too, but not every player on the roster deserves an article! Rikster2 (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • You are technically correct that Watts averages less than 10 minutes per game this season (9.6 minutes to be exact) and that he is the last scholarship player off the bench (only three bench players, including Watts, receive significant playing time). However, neither of those facts are relevant in regard to his notability here. What is important is that he has won an NCAA national championship and that he has received significant media coverage (more than just human interest stories). There are articles speculating on his role after the Will Graves departure and other articles about his switch to power forward, among other things. -Blueman33 (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • It is also a mischaracterization to suggest that my position is that every player on the UNC roster deserves an article. For the record, I am of the opinion that six players on the roster do not merit individual pages as they have not received significant coverage. -Blueman33 (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Rikster2 (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD, noting that Blueman33 is the article's creator. —Bagumba (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am a huge UNC and Watts fan, but according to the notability guidelines it doesn't appear that he makes the cut right now. Maybe he will make more of an impact later in the tourney or in his senior year. In the meantime, I would move the article content to userspace and hopefully it will be useful later. Sorry, Blueman. Remember (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Not even a regular starter. Barnes, Henson, Zeller, and maybe Marshall are the only ones on the team who deserve articles. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Again, this criteria is nowhere to be found in wikipedia policy. Also of note, five other players from this year's team in addition to Watts and the four you mentioned have their own pages. -Blueman33 (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment: OK, I'll be happy to put Knox, McDonald, Strickland and Bullock up for AfD too. None of those guys meet the criteria either. The criteria for college athletes is pretty strict and it's linked above. Stand down, buddy. Rikster2 (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's constructive to threaten to take other articles to a vote for deletion if I don't "stand down" on this one. As shown, Watts has won an NCAA Division 1 national championship and has received significant media coverage (notice that I didn't even need to include the plethora of articles from ESPN, CBS Sportline, Fox Sports, and other sports media). -Blueman33 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not doing it to threaten you - I didn't even realize there were articles on those guys until you brought it up but they'd be subject to the same guidline. You should stand down because you are wrong that Watts meets the WP notability guideline. Being a member of a championship team (a member that rarely played BTW) doesn't make you notable. The coverage I have seen you link doesn't constitute significant media coverage of him as an idividual - it's basic in-season coverage of the local college team. More prominent players than Watts have been deleted because they didn't meet notability standards. Now how about you and I both shut up - both of our opinions are abundantly clear. let others chime in so an actual decision can be made. Rikster2 (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
          • If you feel that your opinion is abundantly clear, then by all means, please stop posting. Don't, however, try to tell others when to stop participating in a discussion. Just of note, asking someone else to "shut up" is generally considered to be rude, even if you include yourself in the request. I'll now try to clear up a few misconceptions you seem to have about the references I posted above. Of the nine newspaper articles I used, only one could be considered "coverage of the local college team." The other eight are from different cities. Furthermore, each of the other eight are from cities that either have their own (7) or are near (1) a different division one university. Additionally, not all the articles are "in-season coverage" as you claim -- Several are from the offseason. I encourage you to read all 15 of the refs above as they might give you a better understanding of the issue. -Blueman33 (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
            • I understand that your case for notability rests on the articles you linked and others like them. I have looked at them all and still would say they don't constitute significant media coverage. It's never been the case that mentions in game reports constitute significant coverage. There is a certain amount of coverage that any successful major conference D1 program will get and they will touch on just about every player at some point just to keep the stories coming - that is routine coverage. The recruitment articles are all the basic write up that papers who regularly cover the team or fan/recruiting sites would do for any signee. Significant coverage would be things like a high profile recruitment (Barnes), consistent speculation of someone's pro potential (Henson), being held up by National press as one of the key reasons a high profile team is having success (Marshall). I'd even argue that Larry Drew meets the standard because his departure has been discussed by print and broadcast media across the country. Watts is a good player and is a contributor to the team - he just doesn't meet the Wikipedia notability standard. If he starts to get widespread media coverage next year or is playing professionally after his college career he'd be notable. But as of now he isn't. Rikster2 (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
              • Assuming good faith, I'm not sure why you keep mischaracterizing the 15 references I included above. First they were "human interest stories." They're not. Then it was "basic in-season coverage of the local college team." Only a few were. Now it's "coverage that any successful major conference D1 program will get and they will touch on just about every player at some point just to keep the stories coming - that is routine coverage." Again, not true. You can speculate all you want as to why Watts has received the individual press he's gotten, but the fact remains that it is there. For multiple reasons (we haven't gotten into all of them), Watts has gotten significant individual coverage from multiple reliable third-party sources (not all members of the team have). The 15 refs I posted above are just a taste of what's out there -- consider them the sampler platter. Wikipedia's official policy is that "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics." We *clearly* have that. The other arguments left against Watts's notability are that is that he is "Not even a heavy rotation player," (untrue and irrelevant); "is the last scholarship guy off the bench for UNC," (sometimes true, but irrelevant); and is "Not even a regular starter," (true, but irrelevant). Additionally, I think you should reconsider your opinion as you were forced to resort to ordering me to "Stand down, buddy," and then later asked me to "shut up." -Blueman33 (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• I am done with what is a pretty clear case of failed notability and interested in hearing other opinions. You have made your "case." If you'd like to continue to do so, knock yourself out. Rikster2 (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • While Rikster2 says he is finished with this conversation, I will continue to help clarify any misunderstandings in discussions I am active with (including this one). To be specific, simply saying, "Yeah, it fails general notability," does not really contribute to the discussion. One would need to say why. The standard in this case is that "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics." I have posted 15 such references from multiple reliable third-party sources. For Watts to be not notable, all 15 refs (plus the plethora I didn't post) would need to be trivial media coverage merely a repeating Watts's statistics. That isn't the case. I hope that helps.  :) -Blueman33 (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete WP:ATHLETE#College athletes seems right on point here. This was part of someone's project to create pages honoring every Template:2009 North Carolina basketball player on a particular college team, not the first time that's happened, and not the last. The requirement is that automatic notability is conferred upon "players who: Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record; Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame); Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." The sources cited are about what one would expect for a UNC athlete, practically a tour of North Carolina (Charlotte, Durham, Gastonia, Raleigh, etc.). Yes, I know that college basketball is important in North Carolina, second only to Kentucky in the zeal of its fans, but most starters on college teams wouldn't qualify for their own article absent some NBA experience. To the extent that non-NBA Tar Heels would get their own shrine in this case, it would be 2008–09 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team. Mandsford 13:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "This was part of someone's project to create pages honoring every Template:2009 North Carolina basketball player on a particular college team" is NOT true. Please do not speculate as to my motives for creating pages. Of note, at least four players from that team do not have their own pages, and I do not plan to create them. Additionally, the criteria for determining the notability of college athletes is "if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics," or not. The three items you quoted are clearly listed as examples, not criteria, in WP:ATHLETE#College athletes. Additionally, just because a specific recognition might confer automatic notability, that does not that mean the absence of that recognition confers automatic non-notability. -Blueman33 (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

True, the creation of articles for players who are on the 2010–11 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team (or were on prior teams) is not the work of any one individual. Fandom is usually the motive for making pages about athletes and actors, although there may be a different reason in this case. I think you've created the pages about Watts, McDonald and Marshall, only a handful compared to the many that have been put up. The problem is that in any given year, there are more than 300 men's college basketball teams in NCAA Division I alone, each with 15 players, not to mention all the women's teams, the football, baseball, track, etc. athletes, etc. and that's a reason why we don't encourage individual pages for any but the most well-known college athletes. The hundreds of season pages are the concession made to the fans of the teams. Automatic notability is provided for professional players in major leagues, but 30 NBA teams of 15 players whose eligibility doesn't run out is a lot less than the thousands of college athletes who have come and gone for more than 100 years. Mandsford 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So you prefer the more stringent "most well-known college athletes" criteria over WP:ATHLETE#College athletes to keep from creating too many pages? -Blueman33 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Gained national media attention as an individual" would pretty well encompass what I would describe as the most well known college athletes. Mandsford 17:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, that's not in the criteria; that's listed as an example that falls within the criteria. So do you disagree with the statement that "college athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics?" -Blueman33 (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Blueman, you just don't want to hear it. Watts has not been written or talked about as an individual by any national media as more than a passing sentence as having scored like 5 points in a particular game. I'm from New Jersey and I've seen him on national tv plenty of times, sure. But I've seen a whole lot of non-notable college basketball athletes on national tv a bunch of times, including my own William & Mary Tribe, and sure as heck none of them pass WP:N either. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Mandsford, please assume good faith. What have I taken out of context? -Blueman33 (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, but this response was supposed to be to Jrcla2, not Mandsford. I apologize. Jrcla2, I invite you to again take a look at WP:ATHLETE#College athletes as it clearly outlines the notability standard for college athletes. While however many times we've seen someone on tv might influence our opinion of someone's notability, it doesn't fall under wikipedia's notability guidelines. -Blueman33 (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with college athletes' notability standards, considering over 70% of the 650+ articles I've written have been about them. My point about tv is that it seems like you keep peddling Watts as notable because he happens to (barely) play for a major program, one of which you are clearly a fan of. Being a fan is great – I'm a fan of many schools and players myself – but I also know the different between being a fan and fan cruft, which is what this is. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you're quite familiar with college athletes' notability standards. That's reassuring.  :) But no, I am not "peddling Watts as notable because he happens to (barely) play for a major program." To my knowledge, I actually haven't made any statement to that effect. But if you have missed all of my previous posts so far, he's notable because he has received significant media coverage beyond merely repeating his statistics. That criteria can be found here: WP:ATHLETE#College athletes. Since you've written so many articles on college athletes, maybe you could help improve this one? There's still a lot more info to add.  ;) -Blueman33 (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd add that I am as guilty as Blueman in quoting parts of the policy out of context, without quoting the entire thing: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record. Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame). Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." The citing of the examples should be enough to demonstrate what they mean by "non-trivial", and all three examples speak to national recognition. Every Division I program is going to get attention from the local and regional media near the school, particularly basketball and football. Mandsford
  • Mandsford, please assume good faith. I did not take anything out of context, but thank you for now showing that the criteria you are using for notability are actually only examples of notability per policy. As previously stated, the absence of something that confers automatic notability does not inherently mean non-notability. Are you saying that "have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record; were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame); gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team," are criteria and not examples? -Blueman33 (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm done. Perhaps someone will agree with you that Watts is notable enough for his own article. Mandsford 15:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

While it's always nice to have others agree with me, it's also good to remember that wikipedia is not a democracy. I think we're reaching the logical conclusion of this discussion. The argument against Watts's notability (well, the only one to even attempt to use policy) is that the three items you mentioned are the ONLY criteria for notability of college athletes. I instead, choose to follow WP:ATHLETE#College athletes at its word. It clearly states that "college athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics." It then gives three examples that fall under this criteria. It clearly states that the three items are examples, and I choose to again take the policy at its word. -Blueman33 (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I keep seeing this line about "Watts won a championship". Now, I'm the least informed person about sports, but I did have the distinct impression that basketball was a team sport. Am I wrong? Is it possible for a single player to win the championship, as opposed to the whole team? And if it's the team that won the championship—e.g., in a game that Watts may or may not have done anything useful—then "Watts won the championship" is neither true nor a criteria for notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Blueman, nice presumptive close, but I think everyone (since you are literally the only person who has argued Watts is a notable college athlete) is going not only on policy but on precedence. There are two ways a college athlete can become notable - performance (examples 1 and 2 in the notability guidelines) and media coverage (example 3). You keep fixating on "the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics." Example 3 is trying to define that for the user. Watts fails on this measure too. Sure, there is some media coverage beyond box scores - but no more than literally ANY other scholarship basketball player on a Top 25ish team. The reason that rider is there is because editors (after long debate) knew that there were some players who are notable and received significant media coverage even though they don't win awards or set records (examples would include players like Brandon Knight, Kyrie Irving or Kendall Marshall). It's not meant to be a catch-all for every BCS-league player. Watts played exactly one minute in a blowout win the other day - how notable do you think that is? Any coverage he has gotten has been either from beat writers or UNC-specific sources who write about every player and have to generate content for a whole year. Outside that, very few people have heard of the guy. I think it's probably about time that a moderator come in and just make a call on this one. It's clear that you will continue to write novels about the subject until the discussion is closed. Rikster2 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rickser2, nice to have you back... again. I think we can stick to the policy as our guide. I see nothing wrong with it, and yes, that's why I am insisting that we follow it. If you feel that the current policy needs revision, this is not the place to discuss it. Yes, there is significant media coverage of Watts beyond his box scores -- that's why he's notable. Your assertion that he has "no more than literally ANY other scholarship basketball player on a Top 25ish team" is NOT true. In fact, there are six players on his own team that not only have less coverage, but also do not meet the athlete notability criteria. So for the love of pete, please stop insinuating that my position is that all college basketball players, all BCS college basketball players, all UNC basketball players, or something similar should have their own pages. Also, I'm glad you're reading my "novels" -- I hope they're helping you better understand the athlete notability policy.  ;) -Blueman33 (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment before taking a closer look. There are suggestions above that a player has to have received non-trivial coverage in national media outlets before such coverage can count. That was never the agreed purpose of the language in WP:ATH. A college athlete receiving such coverage in the national media is presumed to be notable. However, national media coverage is not, and never has been, a requirement for WP:GNG. Many college athletes meet GNG because they have received significant non-trivial coverage in regional media and/or important daily newspapers. While there is an understandable tendency to discount coverage of a hometown athlete in a small-town newspaper, that rationale should not cause us to discount coverage in major metropolitan newspapers (e.g., The Denver Post, The Arizona Republic, Minneapolis Star Tribune, The Plain Dealer, Detroit Free Press, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) that serve entire states or areas with populations larger than many countries. In this case, North Carolina is the 10th most populous state in the US and has a population of 9.5 million -- larger than most countries, including Sweden, Israel, Switzerland and Libya. (See List of countries by population.) There is not a higher notability threshhold under WP:GNG for a person from Sweden than there is for a person from North Carolina. The major metropolitan newspapers serving North Carolina are The News and Observer and The Charlotte Observer. (See List of newspapers in the United States by circulation.) Before voting, I would like to see whether there has been significant coverage of Watts in those types of outlets. Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Blueman: I am not finding significant, non-trivial coverage (e.g., stories in which Watts is the focus of the coverage rather than passing references in game coverage) of Watts in the major metropolitan newspapers serving North Carolina. If there is such coverage, please identify it and I will consider voting to "Keep." Cbl62 (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Great points, Cbl162. Here are three references that should fit the criteria you've listed: one, two, and three. -Blueman33 (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The entire purpose of WP:ATH is to provide for specific conditions and limited situations where people would be considered to have subject-specific notability (sometimes referred to as "inherent" or "automatic"). It has nothing at all to do with whether they meet WP:GNG. As such, the idea that any college athlete who meets WP:GNG is going to come in under WP:ATHLETE is incorrect. If someone wishes to argue that a person should qualify under WP:PEOPLE, that's fine. However, let's simply look at what the policy language quoted above says, rather than going by any single person's statement that they remember when the policy was written. If you have some type of, say, legislative history, that shows what the "the agreed purpose of the language in WP:ATH" was, please link to that. Mandsford 17:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Justin Watts appears not to pass WP:GNG either, I am not sure this is the appropriate forum to review the "legislative history" on Wikipedia:Notability (sports). But since you asked for it, this was discussed at length when Wikipedia:Notability (sports) was adopted as a guideline. At that time, many editors (myself included) objected that the guideline could be interpreted to require national media coverage for athletes. In order to allay such concerns, the proponents of the guideline repeatedly assured us that Wikipedia:Notability (sports) would not prevent a college athlete from qualifying if they met the WP:GNG standards. The discussion is found at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4. The debate was quite lengthy, but examples of the assurances provided include:

• cbl62: "I'm opposed to any guideline that would set a higher notability standard for athletes than business people, academics, politicians, entertainers, etc. ... If someone meets GNG, that should suffice."
• DJ Sasso in response to cbl62: "Please bare in mind that not meeting this page doesn't mean they can't have an article, they can still get an article if they meet the GNG. This page is just a guideline as to when someone is likely to already meet GNG."
• MATThematical: "This article is to provide guidance saying when someone is extremely likely to have significant coverage. There will be many athletes that do not satisfy this article that may satisfy GNG. For these athletes sources must be in the article or presented at AfD in order to avoid deletion."
• Royalbroil: "I Oppose any policy that requires a higher standard that GNG."
• MATThematical in response to Royalbroil: "But it doesn't give a higher standard than GNG, anyone who passes GNG gets an article. This provides guidance to say when an athlete likely passes GNG (but sources are not blatently obvious in a Google search). Of course amateurs can be notable, this is why there is an amateur section, and as said before anyone who passes GNG is considered notable."
• cmadler: Withdrew his oppose vote after the following concern was addressed: "First, it needs to clarify that this does not replace or supercede the GNG, but that this is intended as guidance to clarify when the GNG is likely to be satisfied or to fail to be satisfied. (At least, that's my understanding of the intent.)"

Again, I am not voting "Keep" on Watts at this point, but I want to make sure that the anti-sports crowd doesn't use this debate to try to establish precedent based on an erroneous interpretation of Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Cbl62 (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Just re-read my comments. I don't mean to suggest that anyone commenting above is part of an "anti-sports crowd." But there are editors who have evinced a clear bias against Wikipedia coverage of athletes based on a value judgement that sport is less worthy than other areas of human endeavor. We must resist such a bias, and this debate could feed into that bias. Cbl62 (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we posted at about the same time. Here are three references that should fit the criteria you've listed above: one, two, and three. -Blueman33 (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep after a cursory review of Google News, I see adequate coverage to pass the general notability guideline, even if the subject fails WP:NSPORTS or WP:ATHLETE or whatever other standard is being held. These standards are inclusionary, not exclusionary. See essay at WP:ABELINCOLN for details (Abraham Lincoln failes WP:ATHLETE but we won't delete his article because he met other inclusionary standards).--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Taking another look based on the findings of Blueman33 and Paulmcdonald, the extent of non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media persuades me that Watts satisfies WP:GNG. Examples of the non-trivial coverage of Watts include: (1) "Watts gets shot to replace Graves," McClatchy-Tribune Business News, Nov 6, 2010; (2) "TAR HEELS SIGN 'INSURANCE POLICY', AS SENIOR, WATTS SCORED 24.4 POINTS PER GAME," Charlotte Observer, May 22, 2008; (3) "Watts gets shot to replace Graves; The Tar Heels get 25 points from Tyler Zeller and solid contribution from Justin Watts in exhibition win; Reserve guard scores 13 points in win over Barton," The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC), Nov. 6, 2010; (4) Watts gets first start in victory over Hose," Herald Sun with Chapel Hill Herald (Durham, N.C.), Dec 13, 2009; (5) Former Jordan star looks to expand role during sophomore season with Tar Heels, Herald Sun with Chapel Hill Herald (Durham, N.C.), July 16, 2009; (6) "Watts' late-game FTs lead East over West," Herald Sun with Chapel Hill Herald (Durham, N.C.), Jul 22, 2008; (7) "For Watts, the call finally comes from Tar Heels," Herald Sun with Chapel Hill Herald (Durham, N.C.), May 23, 2008; (8) "Watts' wait pays off. Jordan star signs letter of intent to play at UNC," Herald Sun with Chapel Hill Herald, May 22, 2008; (9) "UNC signs Menchville grad's son for basketball: Justin Watts of Durham's Jordan High averaged 25 points last season," McClatchy-Tribune Business News, May 22, 2008; (10) "DURHAM STANDOUT SIGNS WITH UNC," Winston-Salem Journal (Winston-Salem, N.C.), May 22, 2008; (11) "Tar Heels' haul grows with Durham recruit; Scholarship rewards guard's patience," Times-News (Burlington, N.C.), May 22, 2008; (12) "UNC adds guard to recruiting class," McClatchy-Tribune Business News, May 21, 2008; (13) "WATTS THE MATTER: Jordan star rattles rims, powers Falcons over Wildcats," Herald Sun with Chapel Hill Herald (Durham, N.C.), Jan 9, 2008; (14) "Watts ready to become a Tar Heel," WRAL, May 22, 2008. Cbl62 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of North Carolina articles there, to be sure, which is no surprise. The problem with relying on regional coverage to establish notability is that it favors those universities where the basketball tradition is so rich, the state newspapers have special sections at the beginning of each season with bios of every member of the team, whether it's a starter or, in Watts's case, a fellow who averages 2 points and 9.3 minutes per game, and human interest stories along the way. I live in Kentucky, where, as in North Carolina, and Indiana, the mania for basketball is greater than one might find in, say, Pennsylvania or Missouri. And, in places with storied programs that have such a following, even a minor player receives respect (and, in cases where someone meets him in person, awe) simply for being a Tar Heel or a Wildcat. The extra attention from the media, of course, is based on the team he plays for, not on his accomplishments. But when all is said and done, he's simply one of 5,000 men who played Division I ball this year. Mandsford 02:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Mandsford, just like with Rikster2, we're glad to have you back! The truth is that Watts is not "simply one of 5,000 men who played Division I ball this year." You would not be able to find the significant coverage, that multiple users have shown here for Watts, for most of those 5,000 players. In fact, contrary to your statement, you wouldn't even be able to find this significant coverage for all of UNC's players (If you think you can, please do so). That's what makes Watts notable. In an unrelated issue, it sounds like you're not too familiar with college basketball: First, you can't measure a player's contributions simply by how many points he scores. There's a lot more to the game. And second, averaging almost 10 minutes a game is pretty significant. UNC only has 8 men in their regular rotation, one of which is Watts. -Blueman33 (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Since I was quoted above, I guess I should comment. My comment, quoted above, regarding the relationship of the sports/athlete notability guideline to the GNG was not by way of expressing a preference, but that the specific proposed notability guideline had been unclear as to its relationship to GNG; it seemed to suggest that it was "intended as guidance to clarify when the GNG is likely to be satisfied or to fail to be satisfied" but this point was obfuscated by the language. I'd actually prefer a notability guideline that's more restrictive than the GNG for this exact reason. But since we have what we have, I will point out that there is a key word that appears throughout our notability guidelines, and that word is "presumed". An article that meets a notability guideline is presumed to be notable unless there appears to be a consensus of editors against it (similar to the principle of jury nullification). I will further observe that this, like many Wikipedia guidelines, tends to be descriptive rather than proscriptive. It tells us what is usually considered sufficient for a "keep" result in a deletion discussion, but it does not say that we must operate this way. I think that clarifies my position enough that I can now state that I believe this article should be deleted -- that regardless of any sources that appear (absent something truly compelling, like NY Times, USA Today, ESPN, etc.) he is not currently sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article -- and that my rationale will be understood. I am currently on a semi-wikibreak (traveling), and I do not expect to be able to give prompt responses; however, I will check in here as I'm able over the next several days. cmadler (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry if I misunderstood your statements Cmadler. You are one of the best contributors to the college football project, and I hope no offense was taken. Watts is a case where reasonable minds can differ. In assessing general notability, there is some gray area as to what constitutes "enough" non-trivial coverage and in what media outlets. I think all agree that the hypothetical high school QB who gets a feature story in his hometown paper doesn't meet the test. But there's a lot of gray in between that and the athlete who has feature stories written about him in The New York Times and ESPN. Many of those do meet the general notability standard (which does not require national media coverage). Watts is not a particularly strong case, and whichever way it turns out, I would hate to see people use this as a precedent for future AfDs. The discussion of Watts brings to mind the old legal adage "bad facts make bad law." Cbl62 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment on precedence I don't really see how a decision on this subject could be anything other than precedence for other AfD decisions. We look at 100s of college athletes a year and since the guideline does give some wiggle room these decisions have to point the way to the right decision. I'm a college basketball guy (and a UNC fan so I'm VERY familiar both with the subject and the type of media coverage that a storied program gets in it's local area). In a way, it would be quite freeing for this to go through, because it would mean that I could create articles about literally any UNC scholarship basketball player (at least in the internet news era) because Watts receives the minimal coverage you'd see for a member of the basketball team. Other programs that get extensive local coverage (Kentucky, Indiana, Kansas - even Gonzaga) would be the same. And surely All-Conference level mid-major players would qualify - they receive similar local coverage and frankly more national coverage. If that is the direction we move, then great. I'll adhere to those guidelines. But I guess we could save the server space of having athlete notability standards at that point, because it feels like there wouldn't really be any. Rikster2 (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we'll definitely still have standards. None of us have been arguing that any and all college athletes should get pages. In fact, we've been arguing that Justin Watts meets certain standards (significant media coverage). I think we should just go with the significant media coverage, and not try to rationalize why certain significant coverage from reliable sources shouldn't count. Just thinking off the top of my head, I can think of a few UNC scholarships players from the last 6-7 years that probably wouldn't be notable. -Blueman33 (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In the last 6-7 years, the comparable scholarship players to Watts would be guys like Mike Copeland, Quentin Thomas and Byron Sanders. If the standard being used are the types of articles linked in this discussion about Watts, then all of those guys would be notable. Heck, a kid named Stilman White just committed yesterday. Like Watts he is an in-state kid who was signed as an insurance policy and to be the third-string point guard next year. He has been getting the same kind of commitment stories from the state press linked on here for Watts and will continue to do so. Kind of the way it works for a "Big six" conference program who only offers 3-4 scholarships a year just due to team size. Rikster2 (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete The sources in the article and in this this discussion do not seem to be discriminate (Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Indiscriminate_sources). My impression is that they will cover anything related to the Tar Heels. More independent sources are needed to demonstrate notability, and coverage outside of North Carolina is one example to demonstrate that. Most of the discussions have not met the spirit of "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." in Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes. The number of source is the product of the sources' indiscriminate coverage of the team he is playing on, not the notability of the player's accomplishments. —Bagumba (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with the characterization of the sources as "indiscriminate." The News and Observer and The Charlotte Observer have seven Pulitzer Prizes between them, are the largest newspapers in a state with 9.5 million people and among the largest circulation paper in the US. These are reliable and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Their coverage of Tar Heels is indiscriminate of national interest, which is perfectly understandable because its a local newspaper. This is nothing against the credibility of the paper, it just cannot be the sole factor for establishing notability. The number of reliable sources with non-routine coverage outside of North Carolina is the gauge of notability that has not been demonstrated. Otherwise, its not that hard to justify a WP article for just about every college basketball player that plays for any major program for more than 10 minutes a game. —Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:DISCRIMINATE is a good source to look at that you may find applicable here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Different use of discriminate. I was originally referring to the local news sources being used to establish notability of a single player at a national level, whereas WP:DISCRIMINATE refers to a collection of information (which I dont think is applicable here?) —Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Bagumba, I think you're missing the point of Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Indiscriminate_sources. It wasn't meant to remove all non-national media from being able to establish notability. Essentially, what you're saying is that ALL newspapers and television stations in North Carolina are indiscriminate sources (because we've already established that is at least the minimum extent of Watts's coverage). So are they indiscriminate sources? The two examples given are travel guides and small town newspapers. None of the reference used fall into either of those two categories. It goes on to say that indiscriminate sources may be "outdated, self-published, or not have a reputation for fact-checking." Again, that is not the case for a single one of the references used above. All of the references used here are reputable, reliable, and known for their fact-checking. Therefore, they may be used to help establish notability. Others have tried to argue that the references used here have similar coverage for all division 1 college basketball players in the state. Again, not even close to true. In fact, you probably would only be able to find similar significant coverage for about half of UNC's players from the last 10 years. If you still think they are indiscriminate sources, please show us why. -Blueman33 (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify... my above post makes it look like all of the sources used are from North Carolina. That is not case, but the point is still the same. -Blueman33 (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think what Bagumba is saying (he can correct me if not) is that these media outlets (Raleigh N&O, Charlotte Observer, etc.) target a niche readership when it comes to the subject of Carolina basketball- die hard fans of UNC athletics - so they will publish a much broader range of stories about members of that specific team (and specifically because they are members of the team, not based on their individual merits) than other media sources. I think one of the questions at hand is if this type of coverage really makes someone notable? I would argue that it does not make them notable to most of the world. UNC fans (me included) care a lot about Justin Watts. Once you move outside that circle, there isn't much recognition or awareness of him. Rikster2 (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rikster2's comments. This player is currently only notable to North Carolina fans and is evidenced by the lack of coverage outside of sources targeted towards a Tar Heel fan base. The difference in opinion can be summed as the actual written principles versus the perceived spirit of the principles. There are inconsistencies with some principles in WP (I mean everything is a constant work in progress, right?) and I believe this is one of them. I'm inclined to think the original intent was not to prop up a generally non-notable subject simply by number of sources found which is a product of the team's fanbase. —Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Even assuming you guys are correct that his notability is limited to North Carolina (and I'm not agreeing that it is since North Carolina basketball has a national following), his admitted notability in North Carolina should suffice. Bear in mind we're talking about the 10th most populous state in the USA with 9.5 million people -- larger than most nations of the world. IMO notability in a small community (e.g., hometown coverage in a small local paper) doesn't pass muster, but widespread coverage in a place like North Carolina should be sufficient. If not, are we going to take the position that articles about people who are only notable in Sweden (which has a smaller population than North Carolina) don't pass muster. We need to use our judgment here, and IMO notability in a place with 9.5 million people (as evidenced by feature stories in just about every newspaper in the state) does it. Cbl62 (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Further thought (on potentially misguided assumption that enough has not already been said about Justin Watts): By way of comparison, there are tons of articles on state/local officials, businessmen, local TV personalities, etc. who receive coverage only in their home state, and no one suggests that such articles should be dinged b/c there's no "national" coverage. My point isn't "other stuff exists." It's more fundamental: Athletes aren't and shouldn't be held to a different WP:GNG standard than others. The requirement is significant non-trivial coverage by independent news sources whether the subject is a North Carolina athlete or a North Carolina TV personality or businessman (or a Swedish athlete, TV personality, etc.). Cbl62 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment there is another AfD of a North Carolina player Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leslie_McDonald with more or less the same discussion points forming. —Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Notability_of_college_basketball_players_with_large_fanbase. Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, the length of this discussion seems to indicate this topic needs more explicit guidelines. —Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete It should be pointed out that all the sources I see here fall into the category of WP:ROUTINE. Articles like... this team gets 3 talented freshman of which this guy is one of them... is routine coverage of a local college team. Other articles are to the effect of... this guy found out he was starting last minute, or this guy performed well and so did that guy and that other guy... They are all routine coverage of sporting events, recruiting, and other news. While these articles can be used to help source pages they should not be used to establish notability. WP:DISCRIMINATE also applies here as has been pointed out by multiple people. In my opinion he fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:ATHLETE. --MATThematical (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Not exactly. While there are a lot of articles like what you describe, there are also many more from major newspapers that are features on Watts (significant coverage). Several of these features don't even mention his other teammates, or do so very briefly. I encourage you to check them out -- a few are referenced above. -Blueman33 (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

All the ones with links were routine coverage. If you are refering to the ones without links would it be possible to point to a link that I could examine. I would be willing to change my mind if some of the articles did not seem routine.--MATThematical (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Full disclosure... I nominated Obi Egekeze for deletion before knowing about this thread. Paul McDonald and Cbl62 have voted to keep Egekeze with the same arguments they made here. This is mostly a repeat from what I mentioned for Egekeze's Afd.

An example. BYU gets more press than normal in Arizona, Nevada and southern California in part because alot of BYU's players come from there and the higher percentage of Mormons in the area. All four major local papers will have multiple stories about every mid to major contributor in BYU basketball and football. The verbally or signed high school players for local colleges get special notice in the local papers on how they performed that week. Therefore using Blueman33 and Cbl62 arguments, that would mean almost every BYU player in now notable because they all have multiple newspaper articles from the local papers and in some cases, from other U.S papers. I don't think that is right. If they are a great football player, they will be drafted into the NFL or for a basketball player, drafted or play oversees, thus becoming notable. Bgwhite (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Bgwhite: The sky isn't falling. WP:GNG isn't broken. The standard may not be a bright line, but it's the best/fairest one we've been able to come up with. Nobody is advocating a standard that allows every BYU football player or every college athlete to have an article. Taking your example of the BYU football team, of the 70 or so players on the roster here, I'd bet 25 cents (high stakes for me) that you can't find substantial coverage (i.e., feature stories in major newspapers) on more than about 10% of them. Under WP:GNG, one needs to assess the extent of non-trivial coverage, and we typically discount coverage in small-town and student newspapers. Using such a standard appropriately results in the deletion of many college athlete article, and I have supported many such deletions where there simply isn't any (or enough) non-trivial coverage. (E.g., my delete votes in Bacher, Missant, Frischknecht, Davis, Clayton, Castillo, Gilchrist, and Summers.) Cbl62 (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Does anyone know why this discussion hasn't been closed yet? -Blueman33 (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)