Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Watts: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:34, 27 March 2011

Justin Watts

(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)[reply]

Delete. Fails sports notability guidelines. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sportspeople|list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 01:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
 :::::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. [[User:Rikster2|Rikster2]] ([[User talk: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.  ;)  -[[User:Blueman33|Blueman33]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Cbl62|Cbl62]] ([[User talk: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."  [[User:Cbl62|Cbl62]] ([[User talk:Cbl62|talk]]) 16:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)