Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Ecker

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. Despite the existence of substantial local coverage on the subject, there was a rough consensus that a standalone article is not warranted. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ecker

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Texas. Joeykai (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the 9 references currently in the article. Three are from the San Antonio Express-News, and two of those are long enough to provide WP:SIGCOV. One is from Texas A&M's student newspaper The Battalion, and although it also would fulfill the SIGCOV requirement, I'm unsure if it qualifies as an independent source. Also cited are one article each from the Detroit Free Press and the Houston Chronicle; while those are reliable, they aren't SIGCOV. The other three sources don't contribute to notability, but a Google search did turn up this article from the Norwich Bulletin, which is in-depth coverage of Ecker; given this, I believe he meets WP:NBASIC, so I vote keep. Hatman31 (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the first San Antonio Express-News source has substantial coverage, none of it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia as HS state (or even national)-level achievements are just not noteworthy enough to be DUE, especially when they only receive local attention. The Battalion source is definitely inadmissible as college newspapers are never independent of the student body they belong to. The second SAEN source also has decent college coverage that is slightly more encyclopedic than HS stuff, but it is not independent of the first article and therefore does not count as a second source toward GNG. The Norwich Bulletin does have a reasonable amount of independent commentary beyond all the unusable interview material, so could be a second source for GNG, however this is greatly tempered by it being hyperlocal media. The rest of the sources are routine and/or transactional, are from the SAEN newspaper (including the mysanantonio.com one on his signing), or are press releases (e.g. the KBTX one).

The article was only made due to his being a pro baseball player, and yet none of the references that give him substantive attention are actually covering more than a sliver of his professional career, and none of them extend beyond local interest news. Just because he played in the minor leagues doesn't mean he needs a standalone encyclopedia entry, especially if the vast majority of his page is just relaying unremarkable stats. There are tons of sports websites that have exactly the same info, just not proseified like it is here; why do we need a whole page to document material that no one outside the cities he's played in has ever discussed in depth? JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. We need two pieces of SIGCOV to meet GNG (A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). The first article, from the San Antonio Express-News, is definitely SIGCOV (500+ words on Ecker). So we're currently at 1/2 for GNG. Then there's another San Antonio Express-News article that is significant, but sources from the same paper count as one towards GNG, so we're still at 1/2. The Free Press and Houston Chronicle articles are too short (only one para). I believe the mysanantonio article is from the Express-News. Then there's the Norwich Bulletin article, which definitely counts towards GNG (nearly 700 words on Ecker) and so is our second sigcov source, thus meeting GNG with multiple pieces of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Also, I would like to note that coverage being local (which seems to be the reason JoelleJay wants this deleted) is completely irrelevant when trying to determine if someone meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant to GNG, but not irrelevant to PAGEDECIDE where other factors can be considered regarding suitability of a standalone page. JoelleJay (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar to JoelleJay, I believe that the current sourcing is mostly either of local interest only or WP:ROUTINE coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both locality of coverage and ROUTINE are completely irrelevant when assessing the notability of a bio. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions, minor references, and database results; overall, doesn't appear notable. Nythar^T^.^C 00:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

500+ word articles on the subject are not "passing mentions" or "minor references." Did you even look at the sources? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 cents. Based on the sourcing presented by BeanieFan this appears to be a GNG pass. That said, there has been a tendency to exercise editorial judgment not to maintain stand-alone articles on minor-league baseball players absent something extraordinary. I don't feel strongly enough about Ecker's career to argue that a stand-alone article is needed. Cbl62 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2022 (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.