Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mason Espinosa

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Opinion is split on whether the sources identified are of sufficient quality to meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Espinosa

[edit]
Mason Espinosa (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE local and primary coverage from his time in low-level college football and indoor football. Well below the standards for WP:NGRIDIRON. Yosemiter (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Haven't taken the time to look, but there is some significant, non-routine coverage such as this. If there are other reliable sources with similar depth of coverage, this could be a WP:GNG pass. Cbl62 (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by "should be questioned". It certainly should not be "disregarded", and I don't think that's what you're saying. My rule of thumb is that there's a sliding scale on outlets. For me small town newspapers get less weight in a WP:GNG analysis, but major metropolitan dailies and regional newspapers are entitled to substantial weight. Billings Gazette is the largest and oldest newspaper in Montana, so it's somewhere in the middle. This one article is not enough to pass WP:GNG, but a couple more of that caliber (from additional reliable, independent sources) would tilt me to call it a GNG pass. Let's see what others come up with. Cbl62 (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By should be questioned, I mean they have locality bias (slightly independent or not independent of the subject) on something that would otherwise never be covered by any other media. I do NOT mean disregard. Generally, if someone gets significant local coverage, even from multiple sources, I lump that as one GNG-worthy source. Since multiple is typically needed, I feel there must be one other source with significant depth from a widely distributed source. Otherwise, this would be filled with city high school athletes. As an example, my step-brother is the starting running back at a high school in a 100,000+ metro area and has two articles written on him in two local-only papers; one about his then-upcoming season goals and past accomplishments and another on his discussions with some Div I FBS/FCS programs. He is a local high school star but nothing more for now. That is what I call a locality sports bias and the same general rules apply to pro athletes in small regional sports per SPORTBASIC (found in bullet point number 3).

I guess I should mention that I did go through all 70 G-News hits and saw nothing substantial like the Billings article. Yosemiter (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. First, your concern about high school athletes is addressed in WP:NHSPHSATH which provides an express limitation on the use of local sources. This is a special and extraordinary rule that was adopted to avoid opening the floodgates to high school athlete articles; it has not been extended to higher level athletes. Second, I disagree with your assertion that multiple local sources cannot suffice. So long as the sources are independent, reliable, and consist of significant coverage beyond the routine passing references in game coverage and the like, there is no prohibition on local or regional sources. SPORTBASIC simply emphasizes that local sources need to be independent, which means that the publication must not have ties to the subject (e.g., a university newspaper is not independent when reporting on its student athletes, and a sports league's web site is not independent when reporting on one of its athletes. However, newspapers and magazines with independent editorial oversight are valid, reliable sources under GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point about high school athletes (and by extension, college athletes with a different explicit statement that is like the generalized term I referred to in SPORTBASIC, that the subject needs national attention) is that semi-pro/regional-only pro athletes get the same amount (and often less) than high school/college athletes in the local news. Yet you are saying that it means more. I guess I don't see the difference in terms of independence of the source, both are only being covered because they are expected to be covered by the local media on local athletes. The only difference is that one athlete is paid. Even the local Div I school's players and its rivals in the next metro area got far more coverage in local papers than the local IFL team or any other minor league players. Yosemiter (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding the nature of what we mean by an "independent" source, Per WP:INDEPENDENT, and in short, it means that a source must have "editorial independence" and no "financial or legal relationship with the topic." It does not mean that the Chicago Tribune or The Des Moines Register are not "independent" in their reportage on topics tied to Chicago/Des Moines. Cbl62 (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the low-level college coverage seems to be against WP:NCOLLATH as local athlete coverage, which is exactly what was being discussed above. But then again, I may be against the consensus in my belief that local coverage (local celebrities and athletes) should be considered routine and expected coverage. The transactions covered by only local media, as far as I have seen in AfD's, have almost always been considered routine. Yosemiter (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCOLLATH is an inclusive standard, not an exclusive one. College football players can still pass muster under WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only inclusive to a point; per NCOLLATH#3: Gained national media attention as an individual. The keyword here is national, not local. I fail to see how sports sections for the Herald-Citizen (his hometown paper, he went to Cookeville HS, hence all the titles have "UC/Upper Cummberland Connections:" at the start of each) and the The Delaware Gazette (the paper for his college town that always covers the college) is considered National.

The rest listed by WikiOriginal-9: The Erie Times-News where he played in the low level PIFL and is routine game coverage, KRTV local game coverage and happened to win offensive player of the week with only two paragraphs about what he did in that game, Cleveland 19 game coverage, Billings Gazette transaction coverage of his signing, Primary DIII athletics website about him, Erie Times-News coverage of local team, Gazette coverage of the same Offensive player of the week award with the same amount of content, and WTOC-TV coverage of the next game will have a new starter (Espinosa). I guess I still don't understand why a local-only coverage semi-pro player would be notable when it specifically calls out amateur athletes (who often get more coverage) must be nationally covered. Seems like a lowered standard. Yosemiter (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of an "inclusive" vs. "exclusive" standard. Nobody is arguing he passes NCOLLATH. The argument is that he passes GNG which does not require national media sourcing. **** sigh **** Cbl62 (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find Yosemiter's arguments persuasive. I also believe notability guidelines like NCOLLATH and NGRIDIRON gives us tools to decide notability when GNG is in question. IMHO, if the subject doesn't meet the specific guideline in the area that notability is claimed then I find them non-notable unless a very clear GNG exists. I (personally) hold them to a higher standard. Ifnord (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy basis for imposing "a higher standard" than GNG on athletes, but it's not surprising that you would find Yosemiter's non-policy based and deletionist arguments persuasive given the fact that the AfD stats you tout on your user page show that (a) you vote Delete/Merge/Redirect 89% of the time; and (b) Yosemiter votes Delete/Merge/Delete a stunning 97.8% of the time. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I appear to match with consensus 85.6% of the time. Your percentage is higher. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I respect your opinion, appreciate the effort and time of your argument, but I do not agree with it. Ifnord (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. We are here for the same reason, to build a better encyclopedia, and reasonable minds can and do differ at times. Cbl62 (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I am no advocate on notability for NCAA Division III football players. But Espinosa may be the best QB in Division III history and holds the all-time conference passing record with 11,069 yards. He is the very rare example of a notable Division III player. Compare Brett Elliott with 10,441 passing yards, mostly at Division III level. Cbl62 (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, this (p. 20) says Espinosa is 16th on the D3 all-time passing yards list. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Elliott also previously played for a DI school, made an NFL roster (without making an appearance), and started for an AFL team (which qualifies for NGRIDIRON). He is also a quarterback coach for Mississippi State. All things that gets more coverage than DIII and low end pro career. They don't look that comparable (over 300 G-News hits for Brett Elliott football vs. 72 for Mason Espinosa total). Yosemiter (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Delete - I think being the leading DIII career passer makes him notable. I added that he's an assistant coach also, albeit for DIII Denison. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, this (p. 20) says Espinosa is 16th on the D3 all-time passing yards list. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to delete. I misread the info - he's not the leading DIII passer, just the leading conference passer. The #2 all-time DIII passer isn't on the site, so #16 doesn't qualify either. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The #2 all-time DIII passer isn't on the site, so #16 doesn't qualify either". That might not necessarily be a reason to delete this article. Maybe no one has made the other article yet. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, yet a simple search for Josh Vogelbach shows that he also fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 07:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Tim, it's not the issue, but that simple search shows the opposite: See Josh Vogelbach. Cbl62 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion but there's only been a couple of solid positions taken. Could use some more experienced editors to weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 07:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger: Does your well-crafted discussion of the "nabobs" (a term I haven't heard since Spiro Agnew's day here) mean that you support keeping this article? Cbl62 (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the article itself, just on the level of discussion around it. Also that's not my first mention of WP:NABOBS. ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. That billingsgazette coverage is good. GNG trumps all - SNGs are mostly there to keep articles where sources are expected to exist - they supplement GNG. GNG - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - does not say those reliable sources have to be national. And the second highest division III passing length record-holder does indeed have an article. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 14:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been improved since the start of this discussion. Also the billingsgazzete.com and nationalarean league contents are more than trivial mention.  — Ammarpad (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mason_Espinosa&oldid=1069079436"