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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick VanderLaan[edit]

Nick VanderLaan (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)

Wow, from the look of this article you'd think VanderLaan was an NBA star. After a series of promo pieces for him created by paid shills we now have a new page created in consultation with the subject himself. Yet again using Wikipedia as promotion. The issues from last time are fairly much the same, he has not played in the meantime.
Not notable?. Article looks impressive but on closer inspection you can see the issues. VanderLaan has not played at the top level. He was not selected in the NBA Draft. In the USA he was in the NBA Development League, NBA Summer League, American Basketball Association (2000–present) and Continental Basketball Association, not making it to the National Basketball League (United States). He did lead a stat in the 2006 CBA but this was in the short lived revival period. Is that good enough? It might meet the letter of WP:NBASKETBALL but this was after CBA had lost much of it's significance. In Spain he played for Ricoh Manresa in the second tier Liga Española de Baloncesto as a bench player[1].
This article, even more than the last, is a major bombardment of routine movement reports, routine game coverage, primary sources and database listings. Wikipedia is not the venue for former athletes to stroke their own egos. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from article creator Per WP:NBASKETBALL – "Basketball figures are presumed notable if they- 3. Have won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category of the Continental Basketball Association or NBA Development League." Nick VanderLaan led the Continental Basketball Association in rebounding in the 2006–07 season. User:Duffbeerforme's personal opinion on the league's status at that time is irrelevant. Per the last AfD, of which only three users voted, both of the users who voted "delete" said so mostly based off the fact that 1. the referencing was poor and 2. there were not enough independent sources (you can see the previous attempt from 2015 here). I found multiple independent, secondary, reliable sources of which the subject is VanderLaan himself: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. And per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" – here are two ESPN sources that detail VanderLaan with more than just a trivial mention: [7] [8].

In the last AfD, User:SCMatt33 (who voted delete) noted that "If there's not significant, independent coverage from his time at Cal, Virginia, or in the pros, I don't see him meeting GNG". Per my sources listed above, there is significant, independent coverage of VanderLaan from his college days. There is also decent coverage from his time in the Continental Basketball Association during the 2006–07 season i.e. an article can back-up the league-leading rebounding stat rather than just a list of statistics.

Per my post at Talk:Nick VanderLaan – yes, I have been in contact with Nick VanderLaan himself. He reached out to me via Australiabasket.com earlier this month to ask if I would be willing to create on article on him. He actually picked apart User:Duffbeerforme's previous AfD and detailed how he thought he was a notable figure – I have been around Wikipedia for many years now and I have never had any player request an article from me (Conflict of interest never crossed my mind). I decided to commit to a draft after finding multiple sources on VanderLaan. I created this article from scratch and without bias, like I have done with every other basketball player article I have created. I took this article on as a challenge, and it turned out really well. I have no personal connection to VanderLaan, nor am I actually overly fussed over the AfD for this article – I am much more personally connected to articles I have created on players I actually follow and/or admire.

I personally feel deleting this article would be unjust – to me, VanderLaan meets both GNG and NBASKETBALL. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Three reasons why I am voting weak keep this time, rather that delete as last time. First, technically the article does just squeak by WP:NHOOPS criteria with the subject leading the CBA in a major statistical category (rebounding). Second, the article is very well-written with good references. While that alone does not show notability, the significant number of authoritative references in conjunction with the borderline notability pushes the article into the keep zone. Third, the author specifically contacted me and I voted delete during the first afd. Not an argument for notability, but clearly shows that the author is not trying to sneak a non-notable subject back into WP.--Rpclod (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep He's definitely at the fringe of notability, but I think he's notable enough. He spent most of his college career with major programs, and actually got playing time with them. And it seems that he was at least on the radar of the NBA, with a couple summer league invites. Most important, there is enough verifiable information available to put together a quality article, so I'm fine with us keeping this. (And there's nothing in the article that strikes me as promotional.) One suggestion: maybe the article could explain why he went from a Division 1 college to an NAIA school. The sources briefly mention some sort of eligibility complication; is there anything more to say? Zagalejo^^^ 02:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this, which states "Vander Laan played his first two college seasons at California before transferring to Virginia, but will move again because of limited playing time." DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused by that phrasing. Does it mean that he transferred both times in search of more playing time? Or are you saying, "He transferred again, this time because of a lack of playing time"? The Wikipedia article says that he transferred from Cal to Virginia for personal reasons.

The main thing I was initially wondering about is what I read here. It says, "He played two seasons at California and has one year of eligibility remaining if he plays in a program that is not NCAA Division I." I was just wondering how all that works. I don't remember hearing of another player who needed to leave Division 1 entirely in order to keep playing college basketball. Zagalejo^^^ 17:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the playing time – he averaged over 20 minutes per game at Cal but I guess wanted to leave the program for personal reasons. He then played his junior year at Virginia, but didn't get enough playing time (15 mpg). In order to play a fourth season straight away, it seems he was unable to transfer to a Division 1 school. Does Division 1 not require a player to play four seasons within five years? He had already sat out a redshirt season (2001–02), so transferring to another Division 1 school in 2003 would have required him to sit out another year and therefore lose his eligibility i.e. 1999–2004 is five years, so he would not have been able to play in 2004–05 if he sat out 2003–04 – there are cases of the NCAA giving players clearance to avoid sitting out, perhaps this was not granted?? Why he specifically choose an NAIA school is unknown (instead of Division II for example), but it does appear to be eligibility related, like you mentioned Zagalejo. DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Satisfies WP:NBASKETBALL per above, regardless of editors' opinions of the CBA at that time. If the state of the article and persistent problematic editing are a problem, that still is irrelevant to this discussion. AFD is not cleanup and that can and should be dealt with by page protection and editor sanctions, not deletion. Article is well-written and well-sourced and written by an experienced editor, so I'm not concerned about WP:COI anyway. But if people are, deletion still isn't the answer. Smartyllama (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the Keep votes earlier stated it was questionable as it is, and this last one states about "AfD is not a cleaning-needed place", because he is in fact only a college player, regardless of whether attention was given or this or that, because the solidity of basketball notability explicitly states major league players are in fact notable, not colleges players being a compromise hence Delete. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What of NBASKETBALL including the Continental Basketball Association within its presumed notability? Rlendog (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Our own policy on notability in basketball has been met ("led the league in a major statistical category of the Continental Basketball Association"). If there are concerns with that part of the policy, perhaps discussion needs to be initiated that changes it, but for now, it is what it is. If the concerns are that the article is too detailed for a minor player, then an overhaul of the article, not a deletion, is in order.

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.