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. Should the subject become notable at some point in the future, WP:REFUND is your friend. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Williams[edit]

Mikey Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

High school basketball player with some buzz about him. Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Fails WP:ATHLETE due to this: "sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." This athlete has gotten press coverage (see the article) but on the basis of doing well in non-notable games at the high school level, and the potential for being a top recruit (which hasn't happened yet.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the references from the article are enough to pass WP:GNG. While a lot of the news coverage is just routine stuff about the games he's played, there is some non-routine coverage, including [1], [2], and [3].  Bait30  ^Talk? 21:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though I'm not a fan of 15 year old basketball players with articles, since a lot can change between now and the NBA, Williams does seem to get some coverage. Moving to draft might work also. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sounds like some impressive stats but still routine local coverage. WP:TOOSOON, for now he's shy of WP:GNG, WP:NBASKETBALL, WP:SPORTBASIC. Wikipedia is not a sports prospect tracker and that would fall into WP:CRYSTALBALL. If he trends as expected article can be re-created once he plays for USA Olympic, NBA drafted, and/or sets NCAA records.Bhockey10 (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Subject has been covered significantly by Slam, USA Today High School Sports, 247Sports, and MaxPreps none of which is routine local coverage. Furthermore, his local coverage has been extensive, not routine (See Just Like Mikey: The Story Behind San Ysidro Freshman Superstar Mikey Williams, San Ysidro High freshman Mikey Williams draws national focus, Spotlight Bright as Mikey Williams Makes His High School Debut, Meet Mikey Williams, the top-ranked eighth grade basketball player in the country!, Cougars’ Mikey Williams is the cat’s meow, among others). Sportzeditz (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am the creator of the article. Subject comfortably passes WP:GNG. See comment. Sportzeditz (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:TOOSOON. --BonkHindrance (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand this !vote. If the subject passes GNG it doesn't matter if he doesn't pass NBASKETBALL. Rlendog (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Rlendog, true, but does it pass WP:GNG? Only one of those sources, USA Today, is listed in WP:RSP. Most of the sources are either local (San Diego newspapers/TV stations) or sports blogs. Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • OK. Then we agree that the issue of whether he passes GNG is key. And that is where I am struggling. Local sources aren't inherently precluded from fulfilling GNG. It is one thing when a small town local paper has a story about "local bot makes good." But San Diego is a major city and the local sources seem to be general to San Diego and not local to a particular community within San Diego. So I think he meets the bare minimum of GNG with USA Today and the San Diego paper. And if this was an adult I would easily !vote keep on the basis of GNG. Because this is a child I am sympathetic to the view that we should be a little more cautious, and I'd prefer at least one more significant source before comfortably voting keep. So I am on the fence. Rlendog (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That point is similar to the major issue I have. This and similar AFD that should have been relisted for further discussion Here are WP:TOOSOON and even if they hover close the GNG with a reputable source or two, the entire premise of that coverage goes toward WP:NOTCRYSTAL. These kids won't have sustained coverage if their projections don't pan out. Keep in mind, they aren't even NCAA or top amateur players (Olympics) that are NBA prospects, they're NCAA prospects that may or may not have a pro basketball future. Their entire media coverage is speculation and if they don't pan out, like many prospects do, they're not notable in the larger context of Wikipedia. Also I believe we're giving too much importance that their "local coverage" because it happens to be major markets. I suspect if this was coverage of John Doe player in the Roswell, NM newspaper, there wouldn't be even a question that they come close to GNG but because they're playing high school basketball in a major market, we're giving extra credibility to "local coverage." As I pointed out in the similar AfD, GNG guidelines make clear that the subject for a stand alone article should be WP:SUSTAINED as well as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS- i.e. Wikipedia is not a college sports prospect tracker. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • But there is a big difference between coverage in a local small town newspaper and coverage in a newspaper in a major market. If a small town paper wants to write about local basketball, they have maybe a couple of dozen high school players they can write about. Maybe they have one college team with a dozen or so players. So if they choose to write about a particular high school player, that is not saying much. For all we know they are writing about every player on the local team, maybe even the ball boy, to fill basketball content, and they still may not have enough players to write about 1 per week. In a major market such as San Diego there may well be a local pro team (there used to be an NBA team in San Diego) plus several colleges and hundreds of high school players. So if a San Diego paper chooses to write about a local high school player they are making a distinct choice that this player is particular worthy of being written about, since they had so many alternatives to write about, and that is an element of notability. And one local source would not be enough to meet GNG. But if multiple major market papers choose to write about a particular player then they are effectively giving their assessment that this player is notable.Rlendog (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not how WP:SOURCES work. There's not fundamental difference in weighting an article from a big city newspaper vs small rural town newspaper. The weight is on the content being independent of the subject, verifiable, etc... Reputable newspapers are valid sources regardless of market size. --Bhockey10 (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think we should have a hard and fast rule banning articles on people before they have played even one NCAA game. The whole coverage here is about them as having prospects, not about having achieved something. This is basically news coverage which is "look, there is this person who is going to be a big sports star" but it is premature coverage not showing having gained notablility.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of notable sources including Slam, 247 Sports, etc and he fits the criteria for WP:GNG. Micah Parsons and LaMelo Ball both met this criteria as High School athletes and had Wikipedias. LeBron was just at his game, too. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject does not currently pass WP:NBASKETBALL, due to WP:TOOSOON. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^{self-crossout per comment by @Bagumba:, no 3-relist per WP:RELIST. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

• Keep: If an article passes GNG, subject specific notability criteria or claim of significance is ignored. See New Page Patrol flowchart._{((SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In))PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply(Talk) 19:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC);} !Vote changed Delete: Meets all 3 criterias in WP:BLP1E. Extremely unlikely that new sources will come because he's a somphomore, and the COVID-19 pandemic is suspending sports for now. So, he's going to continue to be low-profile until 2023, so on top of that, WP:TOOSOON. Not yet long-term notable. ((replyto)) Can I Log In's (talk) page 03:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  New pages patrol is a quick screening mechanism, and is not intended to be an exhaustive process. The encompassing guideline is Wikipedia:Notability. While WP:GNG is an oft-cited subpart, there are other factors in WP:N, like WP:SUSTAINED, that need to be weighed along with GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well all I found was WP:BLP1E. I think it meets #1 and #3, but #2 is in question. Will he eventually become high-profile, or stay as someone nobody knows. Well, we have sports not even happening because of the COVID-19 pandemic, so sure in that case, delete. But it's still uncertain, but it's he's only a somphomore, so when a new sources going to come? ((replyto)) Can I Log In's (talk) page 03:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Many sources of coverage, but fails the notability guideline WP:SUSTAINED. He's a 15-year old generating coverage that primarily deals with his projected rank as a college recruiting prospect in 2023. It's a different if he was generating the incessant coverage of a teen player like Bronny James. WP:SUSTAINED also gives the related example of GNG not necessarily being the end-all: New companies and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ... Too soon indeed.—Bagumba (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It should be noted that high school basketball players have a much higher standard of notability they must reach because of the fact that they are not in the NBA and as such they have much less media coverage. Some do reach that place, but not this article. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 06:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Don't delete). According to how i read this page in the sources, it has capacity of being in WP so keep it but can put some improvement tags like (Notability, BLP sources) with time it will be improved. (F5pillar 06:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying to delete it becuase of the current quality of the article. The discussion is about it's notabilty now, not potential prospects by 2023.—Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft, as it is possible that additional sourcing will develop if the article continues to be worked on. BD2412 T 03:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not so sure that within 6 months, additional sources will come. It's very unlikely especially with the COVID-19 pandemic and sports not even happening. And this person appears to be only a somphomore, so draftify might not be the best option. ((replyto)) Can I Log In's (talk) page 03:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm think the additional sourcing will be more in the 2022–23 timeframe, at the earliest, when his 2023 prospects for college will be more concrete than what is being written about now. Still prefer "delete" and ask for WP:REFUND later if situtation changes. Barring that, "draft" is better than "keep"—Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2020 (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.