Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Thomas (basketball)

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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the relevant notability guidelines Davewild (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Thomas (basketball)

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

Your average run of the mill college player. Has not done anything particularly noteworthy. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 04:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 04:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas was a very highly touted recruit out of high school. He received considerable attention on the recruitment circuit. He started half the 2014-2014 season for an Iowa State team that made it to the Sweet Sixteen. In the 2015-16 season Thomas will be either the first or second player off the bench. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.112.137 (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator, a college player and campus hero. I'm sure he's very valuable to his team, but that puts him on a par with thousands of others. I remember when Weber St. beat UNC in the NCAA tournament with a 7' center hitting three 3-pointers, when he had never made a single one before (and never did again). College play, without something shocking (Hank Gathers? Len Bias?) or staggering that's talked about nationally and for years, won't pass the bar. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2015 (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.