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. (non-admin closure)MRD2014 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Rubin (basketball)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:NBASKETBALL, or more generally, WP:Notability (sports) - he played college ball at Boston College and plays professionally in Israel (not among the listed leagues). He did participate in and win a gold medal with the US at the Maccabiah Games, but I don't see that that confers notability either. As for GNG, he was the subject of a Washington Post article during his college career, has been mentioned in articles describing the games he played in and got lots of coverage from the BC outlets, which does not seem like the extensive specific third party coverage that's required. JohnInDC (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The list at WP:BASKETBALL was created by one user and represents no consensus. In fact, there definitely is NOT consensus that All fully professional basketball players are notable. That doesn't mean this case isn't, but since it came up it is important to be clear about this. Rikster2 (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do have trouble swallowing that any person who ever played in any one of those leagues is "notable" and warrants a Wikipedia article. That does seem like a real stretch to me. (And - while I'm here, I'll also add that I'm surprised to see that there are Keep votes based on the third party coverage here, inasmuch as about half the sources are BC sources, the bulk of the rest are just snippets, with only one or two (as best I can discern from the Hebrew) actually the kind of independent, in-depth coverage that's necessary for GNG.) JohnInDC (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was not removed, it was never a named league in the guideline. Arguments really need to be rooted in GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was indirectly removed if the "similar" language that had previously included it was eliminated. 15:43, 7 December 2016 (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.