Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Hollins

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. Spinning Spark 02:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Hollins

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

This article fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Strong Keep - Just because the article fails WP:NBASKETBALL doesn't mean the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. As said in WP:NSPORTS, "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Secondary sources seem to have been provided (asides from the self-referencing one).. although the legitimacy of Fox Sports and 'btpowerhouse.com' is very doubtable. If someone could find any other type of in depth coverage of the subject, I would be far from opposed to deleting it. I think the article has a potential of meeting the guidelines if work is put in. For example, I found this coverage after a quick google search - and yes, just based on the google search, there seems to be a plethora of interest in him, but he appears mostly on player lists of sites like Yahoo or TSN, with little more than a paragraph of description.. very iffy, but my opinion is that he meets notability. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 14:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I previously failed to note the significance of the subject winning the National Invention Tournament MVP, I misjudged what "NIT" stood for. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 01:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable player with no indication of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He won The NIT MVP award. That qualifies as notable under the college basketball notability guidelines. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete NIT MVP doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL. I was actually surprised at how few articles I could find about Hollins given that he plays in the Big Ten and is Lionel Hollins' kid. I just don't see the independent coverage (outside of NIT game reports, which don't count) to justify. He may land with a pro team next season that gains notability, but I don't see it right now. Rikster2 (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC) ETA - changing to Keep, the sources provided by User:Editorofthewiki have convinced me to change my !vote. Rikster2 (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:NCOLLATH. May become notable but right now is WP:TOOSOON.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Winning the NIT MVP award doesn't meet NBASKETBALL nor NCOLLATH. Also fails GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Changing my !vote to keep. Sources have been added that are not merely game recaps, they're about the player. If keeping the article is not what the closing admin feels is the consensus, then I support userfying it in User:Editorofthewiki's space for now. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - how does winning the NIT MVP award not meet NCOLLATH? The first qualification states, "1. Have won a national award or established a major Division I (NCAA) record." The NIT MVP award stands for the National Invitation Tournament Most Valued Player Award. I fail to understand how that does not qualify under criteria 1 of WP:NCOLLATH? Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 01:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NCOLLATH also specifically says "such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport." In the case of basketball players, Template:Men's college basketball award navbox specifically (and intentionally) does not include the NIT MVP. The only tournament MVP that is on there in the NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player. Rikster2 (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NCOLLATH specifically says "such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards", not "restricted to those in Template:College Football Awards", so therefore I would assume that the NIT MVP qualifies under it due to it being a national award under criteria 1, unless NCOLLATH is altered to state "restricted to those in Template:College Football Awards" rather than "such as".. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 15:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to interpret it that way, but I will tell you that there is a reason the NIT MVP isn't on the template and doesn't have it's own article like the rest of the awards on there - it isn't that big a deal. The NIT is not the top-level tournament in college basketball. It is the tournament for the teams left over after the 68 top teams are selected for the NCAA Tournament. Rikster2 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this, this, this and this on Hollins, which I believe qualifies as significant coverage. May I add that Hollins is the all-time leader in career games played at Minnesota in addition to being NIT MVP? While this may sound a tad hypocritical because I just nominated the 2015 NCAA championship game for deletion, what's the point in deleting this when he's just going to sign a pro contract in the fall? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only the third of those is a story that isn't a game report. We'd need more like that one. And we don't know where (or even if) he will play in the Fall. It may not be a league that gets enough coverage to meet WP:NBASKETBALL. If he plays in the top Spanish league, he'd be notable. In the top Icelandic league? Not so much. Rikster2 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. Ignore the game reports. Here is another source that focuses on Hollins. Here is one from his high school days. Together these sources prove that the article passes GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, those I buy. I changed my vote. Nice work. Rikster2 (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to User:Editorofthewiki/Austin Hollins. The article doesn't really have enough coverage in significant sources to qualify for notability. However, what's the point in deleting this when he's just going to sign a pro contract in the fall? WP:BALL doesn't affect things in userspace. It can sit there and incubate for a few months, and it can always be deleted it later if he doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE before long. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have a problem with that at all. However, I must again point out that not all pro leagues bring the assumption of notability. It's actaully a pretty short list (too short IMO, but attempts to get consensus to expand it have stalled). Rikster2 (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting basketball notability guidelines. Userfying is not a viable option unless some editor in good standing wants to accept the article. If so, an editor in good standing can accept in user space. Bear in mind that the original author is a blocked user. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will accept it in my userspace if it gets deleted. Which it shouldn't, because the sources I've added prove that it passes GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because he doesn't meat WP:NBASKETBALL, doesn't mean he doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH, as I said above. Too many people are rashly assuming that's what it means. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 10:19, 15 May 2014 (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.