Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [1].

List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts edit

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Now that I am getting familiar with the FL process and I got List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft passed FL, I feel comfortable that this list also meets all the criteria for FL. However, I do expect some comments on the number of red links so let me address that in the nomination. I feel that this article passes critera 5a because there is a minimal proportion of red links for articles that I feel are notable. I feel that some of these players may not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia because while they were drafted to the NBA, many never played a game and would probably violate WP:ATHLETE. I also feel that this part of the criteria is flexible due to the fact that on several occassions, it was proposed it should be removed but no consenses was ever reached. I'm sure if the situation were reversed and someone was trying to add the criteria, no consensus would be reached on its addition and it would not be added.—NMajdan•talk 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment

  • Column heading "Player name" can simply be "player"
  • Explain abbreviation "Rnd" in the key, or just spell out "Round"
  • You have symbol in the key but they are not being used

—Chris!c/t 18:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also, I saw your change with the ellipses and was kind of baffled. Then, I read WP:ELLIPSIS. They really should consider removing the ellipsis character from the editing help section below the Save Changes/Show Preview buttons if that character is not recommended. Thanks for making the change.—NMajdan•talk 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point 3 still not done.—Chris!c/t 21:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Definite oversight on my part. Third time's a charm.—NMajdan•talk 22:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Redlinks or not, it doesn't bother me. And the rule "a minimal proportion of red links" is really open to different interpretations. Anyway, I am comfortable supporting now. —Chris!c/t 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Unfortunately for this list, the criteria regarding red links makes no mention of notability; it simply says "a minimal proportion of red links", and I can't say that red for 24 of 51 entries (nearly half) is minimal. If the players aren't notable enough for articles, they should be delinked, as two of the entries already are. Haven't taken a close look at the rest yet, though I am unsure of the reliablity of reference 9 (McHenryCountySports.com). Also, there's no reason for the date in the one general reference to be linked. These are secondary in importance to the red link issue, though. I know it is controversial, but an FL criterion does exist (though it isn't my favorite) and should be respected until consensus shows otherwise. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking the "About Us" link on the http://www.mchenrycountysports.com website takes you to http://www.nwherald.com/about_us/ indicating it is a sports-spinoff website of the Northwest Herald. Are you saying that delinking those that are not notable would resolve the red link issue?—NMajdan•talk 23:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I'm saying. The non-notable players would be those who didn't play in the NBA/WNBA. If any of the red-linked WNBA players played in the league, they should probably remain linked since they would be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. The female players by themselves would be minimal in terms of red links, so no worries there. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't checked the article already, I went through my primary source and delinked those that had no stats in the NBA. Let me know how it looks. I will try to get some additional articles created for those that did play.—NMajdan•talk 04:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see that red links are no longer an issue, and am ready to take a closer look at the list as a whole.

  • "while the women's basketball team has had nine players players drafted in the Women's National Basketball Association." Duplicated word in the middle.
  • En dash for "win-loss record" twice.
  • "Three former Sooner men have won a championship with their respective team." Make last word plural?
  • The Jimmy McNatt photo is suspicious. It is highly doubtful that the supposed author took this picture 60 years ago.
  • Spell out WNBA in the references.
    • Left as is. If you visit the references (assuming you are referring to 4 & 5), you will see at the bottom of the page that it is abbreviated the same I have abbreviated it.—NMajdan•talk
      • Fair enough. One further related point: the bottom of the general reference from WNBA.com lists the publisher as WNBA Enterprises, LLC. For consistency's sake, sholdn't this be the same as the publisher in reference 4? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 7 should have The Sporting News in italics (printed publication) and should mention the website (NBC Sports/MSNBC) somewhere. This would be an ideal spot for both work and publisher to be given. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Thanks for the comments. Hopefully I have resolved them to your satisfaction.—NMajdan•talk 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – After many comments from myself and other editors, this meets FL standards. The table alignment really doesn't bother me at all, and I commented on the unlinked players below. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "The University of Oklahoma men's basketball team has" - why not "The U of O men's basketball team, the Oklahoma Sooners, has..." so you can link Sooners rather than easter egg link men's basketball team?
    • I'm torn on this. I don't feel I'm "easter egg"ing the link.—NMajdan•talk
      • I was misled by the link. It looked like one whole link to me. I think you should just do away with the link to the OU article, and link to the basketball article, which is more specific. If readers really need to go to the main article about OU, they can click on the link in the basketball article. This is a linking concept known as "chain linking". Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could then split the first sentence to discuss the female drafts straight afterwards so as not to have a real mouthful opening sentence.
    • Also not a fan of this change, but it was made. Let me know if you feel it is better.—NMajdan•talk
  • You could note who drafted Griffin since it was such a big deal.
  • Name the all-stars, since there are relatively few of them.
  • Najera's alt text - I think you could safely add the description that he is "muscular" to assist those who need alt text.
  • What's ABA?
  • Pick doesn't sort correctly for me.
  • What does en-dash in the Pick column mean?
    • It appears that in the first couple of drafts, no particular order was documented or there simply was no order. I have not been able to find a source that details the early days of the draft and all sources I have found have left the pick number empty for these picks.—NMajdan•talk
  • Alt text for Ms Dales - you could include what is behind her in the image?
  • Notes 1 and 2 are the same, so just reuse one.
  • Ref 6 could use an en-dash in the year range.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]

  • "From 1967 until the ABA–NBA merger in 1976, the American Basketball Association (ABA) held it own draft." - How is this relevant to the article? --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was added to answer the "What's ABA?" question in the review above.—NMajdan•talk
      • You replied "Done" to that question. That doesn't answer my question. Laugh out loud. I think including the ABA Drafts could be possisle. No point in not. --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could mention the first drafted Sooner from the NBA and WNBA Drafts in the lead.
    • I think this may be a bit extraneous. Especially considering the first Sooners in both drafts didn't have an exception, if any, professional career.—NMajdan•talk
  • "# - Inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame" Remove, as the symbol is not used in any of the tables.
  • Could mention who is currently active in their respective leagues.

--[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Wizardman 19:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: In the NBA Draft you have Round/Pick. In the WNBA draft you have Round/Pick/Overall. Make the two consistent. Wizardman 18:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for pointing that out. Oversight on my part.—NMajdan•talk 16:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • The University of Oklahoma men's basketball team has had 42 players drafted in the National Basketball Association (NBA). The women's basketball team has also had nine players drafted in the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA). - These two sentences need to be reworded, the second sentence implies that men had 9 players drafted, which contradictory to the facts.
      • I don't see how the second sentence implies what you say at all. Seems very straight forward to me. Can you be more specific?—NMajdan•talk
        • The word "also" is used as a synomym of "same"; thus implying what I said. The word "while" is more precise IMO. Something like ...men had 42 players while women had 9...--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I originally had it structured this way, but another reviewer suggested I split it into two which is how it stands now.—NMajdan•talk
            • It may be easiest if you removed any kind of interjectory phrase, or replace "also" and "while" with just "and". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Are you suggesting I remove the "also" from the second sentence? If so, then the sentence sounds very odd.—NMajdan•talk
                • Not that odd, just two plain old sentences. Perhaps for the sake of just getting on with this FLC, it'd be better to revert to "...while..."..... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oklahoma had two players selected in both the latest NBA draft and latest WNBA draft. - Two players in total OR two players in each draft? Be specific.
      • Again, I feel that I am being specific. By saying "...two players selected in both...", I am saying that two players in both the NBA Draft and WNBA Draft.—NMajdan•talk
        • There's a room for a doubt or second guessing. Why not use the word "each", something like "...two players in each of the drafts...".--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Didn't do your exact recommendation, but I did make a change that I think should make it clear.—NMajdan•talk
    • ...must be at least one year removed from the graduation of his high school class. - This is not applied to international players. Be more specific.
      • Right, that rule doesn't apply to international players but this is a list about an American university's draftees, so the international rule doesn't apply. Now, it does belong in the main yearly NBA Draft article.—NMajdan•talk
        • The lead should explain the draft process and by omitting the "international" part, it gives false explanation. You can add the "only Americans" part in the end.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added a part in the lead which indicates the rule is for American players.—NMajdan•talk
    • Also, all five non-playoff teams that participate in the draft lottery pick in the order of the lottery outcome with the remainder of the league selecting in reverse order of their win–loss record. - where are the commas? or some other punctuation marks? It's just hard to read.
      • Where would a comma go? The only place where one might go is after outcome but I don't think it is necessary.—NMajdan•talk
        • I'd suggest after "lottery" before "pick".--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree that a comma is needed there. Maybe someone else has an opinion on it.—NMajdan•talk
            • Only place I can read it as possibly useful is after "outcome". I think we're a bit comma-crazy sometimes. There's not a single rule of grammar I've come across which would mandate a comma between lottery and pick, but I'm a Brit so what would I know... ?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...have completed her intercollegiate... - her or their? we're talking about "players", right?
    • Can the image captions "draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious"? per WP:CAPTION
    • Why are the player names and teams centered? The text should be left-aligned in the tables.
      • I've seen many other articles have center-aligned text. Can you link to the MOS guideline on this?—NMajdan•talk
        • You may find one or two lists with centered text, but the majority is left-aligned. Besides, you have both left-aligned and centered text in the table, you need to be consistent.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd like to hear from other editors on this change. I have several FLs that are like this so I don't see a problem.—NMajdan•talk
            • Unless the MOS mandates something specific, this is personal choice. As NMajdan says, there are many FLs with either center aligned or a mixture of left and center aligned text. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • MOS mandates consistency; this list does not follow consistency.--Cheetah (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Can you point me to that? We have had a number of tables in the past where this inconsistency has occurred, so it'd be useful to be able to point to the specific section of MOS which prohibits it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's section 1.1 of WP:MOS.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think your intepretation of internal consistency equalling all columns should be aligned the same is extreme. The list is consistent with itself. If you are sticking to this (and would oppose because of it), we may need to revisit many, many of our current FLs. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The list uses two styles (both left-aligned and centered text) in the table in the same page (i.e. internally), how is it extreme? Every part of the MoS should be followed, especially the very first part. Let's revisit those FLs if you think they fail the first "rule".--Cheetah (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I don't think they fail the first rule, you do. And it's not the rule, it's your interpretation of the rule. And last time I looked it was a guideline. You'll need to add several hundred FLs to FLRC if this is going to be your approach from now on. In extremis, you could argue that paragraphs should be the same length (internal consistency) or that sentences should be the same length (internal consistency). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Oh, and I just browsed a random sample of current FLs, and I'd say at least 800 have a variation of alignments within them and many hundred have central alignment, not "one or two lists with centered text" as you suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(→) Don't mock the MoS, please. I just went through around 20 FLs and didn't find any, but I'll take another look later. As for this page, it just needs its "notes" columns to be centered and that's it. I really didn't think this will be discussed as much.--Cheetah (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't mock the MoS"! Funny... The reason this is being discussed so much is that it affects a huge number of existing FLs and a number of current FLCs. If you're going to oppose all lists based on this interpretation of MoS then it needs discussion. As for finding some examples 1, 2, 3 (note the Key table here), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8... I clicked on about 16 to find 8, hence my estimate of how many lists have your interpretation of "internal inconsistency". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The #4 is the only one that really violates. #5 can easily be fixed, I don't see any problem with others. Keep in mind that numbers have their own style.--Cheetah (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I'm really confused. List of Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best short fiction for instance (number 8 above), has a mixture of left (author, title) and centrally (year, result) aligned columns. List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex (number 7) has left (site name), central (reason, grid reference, year) and right (Area) aligned columns. The key table in number 3 (List of Houston Rockets seasons) has a mixture of central and left aligned text columns. Isn't that the thing you're objecting to here, or have I misinterpreted your comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am only talking about all text should have same style/format. By saying text, I mean a word, a phrase, or a sentence. Numbers and abbreviations can have their own style/format. In your #8 example, all columns that have text are let-aligned. The result column looks like it has abbr. Your #7 example has only one column with text and it's the "site name" column. Now, afer taking a second look, I see that numbers have inconsistent style(area and year). That's worrisome to me. As for the example #3, I see the first column has abbr. and the second column has text, it looks OK. --Cheetah (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, my #8 has text both left and centrally aligned. Look again. (Won isn't abbreviated). And shouldn't those em-dashes be left-aligned in the blank cells? Are you saying abbreviations can be centrally aligned while non-abbreviations can be left-aligned? And numerical text can be right-aligned? I think you need to clearly define the rules you're applying here so we can make an assessment on the many 100s of lists this clearly affects. Where does MOS say "numbers and abbreviations can have their own style/format"? I think this is confusing. And I don't think it's a valid oppose. I think you can see that, say, aligned numbers both centrally and right (e.g. years centrally and physical values right [so they line up per 1,000]) makes a lot of sense, despite your interpretation of "internal consistency". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And just quickly heading back to the few examples of the many hundreds, #1 which was List of Washington Metro stations has left (code, station, opened) and central (jurisdiction) columns, all text, #2 has left-aligned text but the colspan text is centrally-aligned (is this an exception to the "internal consistency" rule?), #6 has a mix of abbreviations and non-abbreviations in the left-hand (centrally-aligned) column (are mixtures covered somewhere?) and #7 seems to centrally align references (which are, after all, numbers), while right-aligning capacity... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the original issue was resolved. What more is left that needs discussing, with regard to alignment of tables? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the original issue was resolved. The comment was "Why are the player names and teams centered? The text should be left-aligned in the tables." The names and teams are still centred while the awards are left-aligned... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much time to keep up with this discussion. I'll add the last comment. Scroll through all the players' names. After doing that, click on 2006 NBA Draft and scroll through those names. If you don't notice a difference, then just close this discussion and move on. If you do notice a difference, you'll know what to do.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That rather misses the point. Just because one other FL happens to have your approved version of alignment, it doesn't mean this list has to be the same. One other interesting point is that the headings of a wikitable are all centrally-aligned, while the text under them can be left, middle or right aligned. The only reason I want you to explain your overall strategy using the above examples is so that we understand future oppositions based on "internal inconsistency". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. That list isn't even a featured list. Why would you suggest it as an example? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "key" section mentions that † marks NBA or WNBA champions, but it also marks the ABA champion, Don Sidle. This confusion needs to be avoided.
      • I mention the ABA and the ABA-NBA merger in the lead. Is that not enough?—NMajdan•talk
        • Most readers would just jump to the list skipping the lead, so adding three letters "ABA" in the "key" section should not be a big deal.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are some names not linked? I believe they're professional athletes and are notable enough to have a page here on Wikipedia some day. Do you feel they're not notable or afraid of the red links?
      • I covered this is my nomination intro.—NMajdan•talk
        • It needs to be mentioned what players did not play a single game in the pro league. Some indicator along with color may be used for this.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, I think having to indicate which players actually played in the NBA is a bit beyond the scope of this list and hard to verify. I don't think it is needed.—NMajdan•talk
            • I'd agree with NMajdan here. This a list of who was drafted, not who didn't go on to play in the NBA/WNBA. It's interesting if it can be clearly cited, but it'd be an exercise in trying to prove a negative and certainly is borderline within the scope. This is about those drafted into the NBA/WNBA, not necessarily if they went on to make appearances. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • There needs to be some explanation why those players are not linked at all.--Cheetah (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't believe so. Not linked inherently means not notable enough for an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • All of these players are in the same scope, right? They all went to Oklahoma and they all were drafted. So, why some are notable while others not? If all players were unlinked, then we wouldn't be discussing this.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well, once again, this is a new point out of the blue! We have hundreds of FLs with unlinked items, without note, because it is widely understood that unlinked terms fail notability criteria. Proving this is attempting to prove a negative. One was promoted only three days ago - List of members of the Council of Keble College, Oxford. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • WP:ATHLETE, the standard for athletes' notability on Wikipedia, states "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" are considered notable. If draftees never played in a game, they technically don't meet this standard, and have to meet a much tougher standard to be considered notable. Considering how popular college athletics are in the U.S., it strikes me as a hole in the system, but it is an accepted standard and should be respected as long as it is considered so. With that in mind, I see nothing wrong with not linking the players here. We can't complain about the amount of red links in lists and then disagree with someone who removes them when articles can't be created. Why tempt an editor to create an article that will likely be deleted anyway, barring multiple sources on the player that establish notability? The one area I can see your point on is the female players. If they played in the WNBA (not sure if that's the case), they should be linked since they are decidedly professional players. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(→)These draftees have competed at the highest amateur level in basketball; therefore, they meet WP:ATHLETE. College basketball is the highest amateur basketball competition. In today's basketball world, Olympics and World Championships can't be considered amateur tourneys because professionals play there. Since they meet WP:ATHLETE, I believe they should be linked.--Cheetah (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC) --Cheetah (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they meet ATHLETE, redlink them and then we can move on. If they don't, don't link them and then we can move on. Nothing more needs to be said. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, at least with college football, I'm pretty sure it's an established fact that college football players (who are similarly situated athletes to college bball players in terms of the stature of their amateur status) are not inherently notable. See 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team#Roster for example, many of the players have no articles. Occasionally a player like Sam Bradford or Tim Tebow is notable enough through other coverage (Heisman race, for example), but for the most part not. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, keep in mind that the level of media exposure afforded to collegiate athletes has exploded in recent years. Its a lot easier for a lot of athletes to meet WP:ATHLETE since there is a lot more written about them these days. There's a lot of sports coverage given ESPN, local newspapers, websites and magazines dedicated to that particular school (I know Oklahoma has at least two magazines dedicated to Sooner athletics: Sooners Illustrated & Sooner Spectator). Before the 1980s and maybe even the 1990s, not nearly as much was written about collegiate athletes and thus it is harder for them to meet the BIO guidelines.—NMajdan•talk 14:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You bring in a couple of nice points. College basketball wasn't as big of an event before 1980s as it is now. Just explain to me why Tim McCalister has an article while David Johnson and Darryl Kennedy are not even linked? Also why none of those women are linked? They were drafted after 2000, they should be notable enough.--Cheetah (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. Obviously, I still have several questions regarding your suggestions, so I hope we can clear them up.—NMajdan•talk 15:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with cheetah's athlete interpretation. If they didn't play professionally, then just keep them unlinked as they are now. Just "being drafted after 2000" doesn't make someone notable. McCalister had a 4 year professional career, while the other two did not play professionally based on what i could find, hence no link. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share with your evidence that states "McCalister had a 4 year professional career"?--Cheetah (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I misread the article. I thought it said he played in the nba for four years, but he never played professionally. Nevermind then, his article as it stands does not establish notability. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has it now got to the point where, instead of dissecting each individual's worthiness of a redlink, we should just redlink everyone in this list? NMajdan did a good job of trying to explain why he didn't take the easy option of just linking everyone, but it appears to have blown up in his face. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Another WP:ATH question. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, per the notability issue, I have no problem with him keeping them delinked. The list still seems fine to me. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see a difference between McCalister and Kennedy, for example. Both were drafted in 1987 and none of them played in NBA...yet one is linked while the other is not. Why?--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, because McCalister currently has an article. It'd be pretty stupid to not link it when the article exists. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was asked to comment on the alignments so I'll do that quickly: I'm fine with the way they are now, the center alignments look fine. If consensus lies elsewhere in the end then that's also fine, I really don't consider it much of an issue. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the center alignment is fine.—Chris!c/t 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Oklahoma_Sooners_in_the_NBA_and_WNBA_Drafts/archive1&oldid=1207832208"