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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dunigan[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Being a conference player of the week, or getting in trouble for shooting a BB gun doesn't make you notable. BLGM5 (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE, nominator makes good point, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.RadManCF (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is actually a discriminate collection of information in this article: see WP:DISCRIMINATE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see widespread coverage from just a quick google search. I also see sources in the article and believe that this subject is notable enough through general notability guideline. Additionally, the WP:ABELINCOLN covers that "athlete" is not exclusionary. Just because he hasn't played pro ball does not mean an automatic delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dunigan is an average player on a bad team. Let him accomplish something (All-Pac 10, lead Oregon to the NCAAs, etc) then create an article about him. By the way, WP:ATHLETE is completely outdated when it comes to amateur athletes. It lists the Olympics and World Championships as the highest level of amateur competition, but they have taken pros for closing in on 20 years. The highest amateur level of basketball competition is NCAA Division I - especially in the BCS conferences and Top 25 teams. That's not to say every college player is notable - because Dunigan isn't. Rikster2 (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments just two points:

1. Skill level is not neccesarily an indicator of notability, and certainly lack of "top-shelf" skill level doesn't negate the coverage in independent, reliable sources--at least, no reason is given why it should
2. The "BCS Conferneces" refer to college football exclusively and have no place in college basketball. Gonzaga and Villanova are examples of programs not participating in the BCS in football but are standouts in college basketball.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skill level may not be a criterion but skill level can dictate if a player accomplishes things that make him notable. And we all know that "BCS conferences" is shorthand for the top six athletic conferences in the NCAA. The Big 12, Pac 10, ACC, Big 10, SEC and Big East also dominate college hoops. There is no corresponding term for the big six conferences in basketball. Rikster2 (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like you are agreeing with me and yet still arguing, I don't understand... 1) Of course there is no corresponding term for the "big six conferences" in basketball because "smaller" schools (see aforementioned Gonzaga and Villanova) often put forth highly competitive teams. But it doesn't matter because this article isn't about the conference, it's about the player. 2) Yes, skill level can dictate if a player accomplishes things that make him notable. So why even bring up skill level then? Just look at the coverage and then make the call--is the player notable or not?--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did make the call - Dunigan has accomplished nothing to make him notable at this point in his career and is not inherently notable. Happy to carry on the BCS conversation if you want on my talk page but this isn't the place Rikster2 (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response accomplishments mean very little to notability. 533 Google News Listings might be worth considering. Widepsread significant coverage trumps skill level. As to the BCS comment--you are precisely right, this isn't the place for it. Just strike your comments out and we'll be fine. But you make it an issue by mentioning it in this discussion. It no more belongs here than a comment like "The Kansas City Chiefs aren't notable because they don't even play in the National League" -- it's totally irrelevant because they are two different sports. No pro football teams compete in Major League Baseball, just as no college basketball teams compete in the Bowl Championship Series.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This player appears to fail ATHLETE having neither played at a professional level of basketball nor the highest amateur level. The coverage of the BB incident is a case of a person receiving coverage of only one event and any game reports etc. that mention Dunigan in passing do not pass WP:NTEMP. Would have no objection to the article being recreated if he goes on to play at a higher level. -- BigDom 17:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as stated above, WP:ABELINCOLN covers that "athlete" is not exclusionary. Failing the WP:ATHLETE is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about BLP If kept the material about the BB gun needs to be removed as very minor & unrelated to notability DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a college player who got some press completely fails WP:ATHLETE. Abductive (reasoning) 11:41, 13 March 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.