Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitch Taylor

:{{la|Mitch Taylor}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mitch_Taylor Stats])

:({{Find sources|Mitch Taylor}})

Does not seem to be a player of any major significance. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep – Taylor led NCAA Division I basketball in a positive statistical category as the nation's most prolific three-point shooter in 1994–95. He also is one of only 15 players in Division I history to record 12 or more three-point field goals in a single game and is listed in the official NCAA men's basketball media guide for it. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment – I call into question the deletion rationale: there are no policies or guidelines cited and it smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As the article's creator and primary contributor, I was also not made aware of the AfD (fortunately I had it on my watchlist). Jrcla2 (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• It has nothing to do with "I don't like it". This is a player who never made it past college ball and who has no unique major records; just a couple of piddling ones. (Second place in one and tied for sixth place in another.) It's like arguing that someone who places fifth in two different amateur spelling bees should get a Wikipedia entry. Bueller 007 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Interesting comparison, but no, it's not like that. He was the national leader in one of the statistical categories in the top level of amateur competition basketball in the United States. And being "tied for sixth" for the 3FGM in one game article is being disingenuous to what the article's threshold is, which is having made 12 in a single game, something like 0.0000000001% of any Division I college basketball players have ever done. In fact, it's so rare that the NCAA media guide lists them, as mentioned before. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• "0.0000000001%"? That's a fascinating and entirely made-up number. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole Who'dve thunk] Jrcla2 (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment As SNG WP:NCOLLATH is not met, is there evidence that WP:GNG is satisfied?—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

---

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

---

• Keep A close call, but I think there's enough significant coverage in the Baton Rouge and New Orleans newspapers from 1994 to 1996 to pass WP:GNG. I've added a couple of the sources to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

: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.