Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Socoby

Mark Socoby

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

Player who fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:NCOLLATH. At best, the sources I could find would be considered WP:ROUTINE. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. I (the creator of the article) was not notified of this discussion. Socoby to leave UMaine is a full length story on his career and departure from the UMaine program. Summer ball is helping Socoby make transition is a story from 5 years before about the player. Tourney MVP Socoby paces Maine here is another one that features the player. Socoby was the subject of multiple independent sources.--TM 03:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socoby can take lesson from Hall is another article which covers the person in great detail. Socoby ready for leadership role ; Men's basketball: He's just a sophomore, but UMaine's Mark Socoby is used to being a leader. is from the Portland Press Herald and clearly is about Socoby as the individual. I count 4 articles specifically about the player. GNG states that a topic is notable if it "has received significant coverage (four articles about him) in reliable sources (the two largest newspapers in the state) that are independent of the subject (obvious),". Any arguments like Eddy's below should be discounted.--TM 14:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The Tourney MVP article is very misleading, but nice try. The headline of a routine article about a championship game happened to be about Socoby, but if you actually read the article it's about the game in general, not him as an individual. As for the other article, which is the only article that qualifies as extensive outside coverage of him, it's clearly WP:ONESOURCE. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even if you wish to discount the third article, the first two are specifically and only about him, so nice try on that one.--TM 14:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place for mid-major guards who leave school early. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 04:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT and "Does not belong here" in full effect. Whether there are enough independent sources to pass GNG is the only question here.--TM 04:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy is not saying he doesn't like it, he gave a reason that has been argued many times over regarding college basketball players' notability. Mid-major players, especially as less than premier basketball schools, just don't have the same press covering then. GNG is right, and this player clearly fails it. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They do belong IF they meet the same standard as every other article. If a guard from Duke did not meet GNG, he would not be kept simply because of his school. It isn't about what school a player plays for, it is whether they meet the guideline. Eddy's !vote is "Wikipedia is not the place for X", which is almost a direct quote from the 'arguments to avoid' essay.--TM 14:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The significant coverage mentioned so far is all coming from Bangor Daily News. The subject is lacking coverage from muliple sources needed to satisfy GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they come from the Portland Press Herald and the Bangor Daily News. Last time I checked, that qualifies as multiple, reliable independent sources intellectually independent. This whole AfD is an excellent example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and ITDOESNTBELONG and I am going to ignore the guidelines because I don't think mid-major college basketball players who pass GNG deserve articles if they weren't stars.--TM 20:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the one additional source after my comment. However, GNG says "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." While two is technically "multiple sources", two newspaper articles is not on par with say two books. I would need to see a few more newspaper articles before I reconsider his notability.—Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your standard of notability is significantly higher than Wikipedia's. To quote the WP:GNG summary "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention." If there are reliable independent sources from books or newspaper articles, that is good enough. If you are going to make your own standards, then, obviously, your !vote should be discounted.--TM 02:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Namiba - weren't you the guy who put 1985 NCAA tournament hero Harold Jensen up for deletion via PROD? You seem to have an elastic standard for notability of college basketball players. I don't have a problem with advocating this guy be kept, but you've got a bit of nerve accusing others of inconsistency. Rikster2 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've also got a bit of nerve saying, numerous times in this AfD, that (so-and-so's) opinion or !vote "should be discounted." Keep that to yourself. Administrators don't need your help deciding the merits of this debate. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think I'm creating a new standard, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Even if your interpretation on existing standard is correct, consensus can still decide to ignore it if it improves Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this guy has no permanent notability. Not everyone who leads a DI school in scoring deserves a page. He has never been regarded as notable by the national press. Searches like "Mark Socoby" site:nytimes.com and "Mark Socoby" site:rise.espn.go.com are basically blank. "Mark Socoby" site:usatoday.com yields nothing but stories about him leading his team in scoring. I can not support this guy being in an international encyclopedia.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. For a non-power conference, I would draw the line on notability at first team All-conference. Third team is not important enough for me unless he gets notability from another endeavor.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was a solid player with minimal news coverage apart from game reports. Does not appear to be playing anymore, though, three years after his last game action at Maine. Not notable as a college player IMO and now he's done. Rikster2 (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first two links to news sources found are significant coverage in two different reliable sources. So he does in fact pass WP:GNG Dream Focus 01:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Third-team college all-star does not create notability. Coverage is routine. Not finding significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Scottdrink (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]