Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Patterson


 * 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Marcus Patterson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non-notable basketballer, never played for the majors, fails WP:NBASKETBALL and isn't notable for anything else. I removed a slew of poorly sourced content and fake blackhat SEO sites. Praxidicae (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The article satisfy WP:GNG, the league (Proliga Portugal) for which the player is playing is considered as the second most important basketball league in Portugal . The page for CA queluz has not been updated since a while ,below I have given a brief info about the team.Until 2007 CA Queluz played in Liga Portuguesa de Basquetebol I Divisão which is considered as the third league in Portugal.On October 2020 , CA Queluz started playing in the Proliga .On 24 October 2020 ,Marcus Patterson played his first game in the Proliga where he played for his team CA Queluz . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Starkbutler (talk • contribs) 04:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The subject does appear to have played professionally and thus meets the subjective criteria. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  08:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Playing professionally is not enough to pass any criteria. A basketball figure is presumed to be notable if he passes WP:NBASKETBALL but none of the leagues Patterson has played in are listed there. Furthermore, he does not pass WP:GNG at all. The only sources I find seem to be, as Praxidicae has pointed out, paid articles on spam sites. Alvaldi (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * We cannot directly say that the player has not appeared professionally, as its not listed here WP:NBASKETBALL but we cannot ignore that Proliga (Portugal) is considered as the second most important league in Portugal .Player such as Nate Bowie has played in this league .The sources pointed out by Praxidicae may be Promotional and were removed instantly but there are other sources which help the subject to merit an article on Wikipedia. Starkbutler (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you would, you know, actually provide those sources. GRINCHIDICAE🎄  13:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The references are cited in the article and here are few more


 * A player can be notable regardless of the league he plays in. But playing in the Proliga (Portugal) does not make a player notable (I'm not even sure that the above mentioned Nate Bowie passes WP:GNG). Of the four sources, and  do not go towards establishing that Patterson passes WP:GNG, with the first just being a player listing and the second is not independent of the subject, as it is an article from a college team he played for. At a first glance, the other two might go towards WP:GNG. The Bronx Times and Portugal Resident articles both seem to be independent of the subject but are as far as I can see both are from minor publications and both articles are published within a month of each other. (The Bronx article also seems to be the same as this one). I'm not seeing significant coverage over a significant period of time. Alvaldi (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A coverage is a coverage rather than it being from a minor or highly reputable source, the main thing is that the article should be unbiased and cover the subject in a neutral manner(WP:BIASED). I think time frame of the article doesn’t matter as it not mentioned anywhere as a criteria.Here are few more sources I found on the internet   Starkbutler (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Coverage is not just coverage. The subject needs to have coverage in reliable and independent sources over a sufficiently significant period of time. Both the and  are sponsored articles. The theonlinebeacon.com article and troyrecord.com article both only mention him once. Alvaldi (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fails WP:NBASKETBALL, but a simple Google search shows that he passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, including: (1) this from Yahoo! News (national coverage), (2) this from AM NewYork, (3) this from the Times Union, (4) this from the Bronx Times, (5) this from New York Weekly, (6) this from the Central Jersey newspaper group, (7) this from the News Ledger, (8) this from Mid Day, and (9) this from the Deccan Herald. Also, (10) this, (11) this, and (12) this are significant coverage but I'm not sure if Portugal Resident, "InstaBulletin", and Algarve Daily News are reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the article was submitted to AfD less than four days after creation, a bit quick on the trigger given the extent of coverage turned up in a simple Google search. This article can and should be improved, but deletion is not called for. Cbl62 (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Every single source you've given is unreliable or paid for. Not a single one is independent nor is it coverage. GRINCHIDICAE🎄  02:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We have significant coverage from multiple independent news sources -- an extraordinary and unusual level coverage for any athlete. At first glance, your contention that all of this coverage is "unreliable or paid for" strikes me as preposterous. But I am open to hearing your evidence: Do you have any actual evidence that this very substantial coverage across a dozen or so media platforms is all paid for??? Cbl62 (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's almost as if you didn't read any of the sources you posted this is a brand post which is a PR piece. An interview, an established blackhat SEO site, unless of course you believe a PR firm writing about someone is genuine journalism, another established blackhat SEO site, another blackhat SEO site (most of which are just copies of other sources.), brand/sponsored content and the rest have already been discussed. All of this can be yours for a low-low price  GRINCHIDICAE🎄  08:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. A few points in response:
 * (1) FWIW, your comment that "it's almost as if you didn't read any of the sources you posted" comes across as snide and does not aid in persuading the target audience.
 * (2) I actually did examine the sources and found it odd that news outlets in South Asia would be reporting on the topic. Checking further, I found that Wikipedia's articles about the Deccan Herald and Mid Day describe them as legitimate, even award winning, news outlets. That said, I appreciate your further link to digitalprworld and agree that these sources should be discounted.
 * (3) As for Yahoo! News, our own Wikipedia article on the outlet confirms it as a reliable source, even noting that in 2019 it was ranked as the sixth most reliable global news source, ahead of Fox News. That said, I take heed of the reference in digitalprworld and find such practices to be quite discouraging. [If Yahoo! News has sunk to such depths, should we mention that in our Wikipedia article about the outlet?]
 * (4) Your claim that this piece should be discounted as an interview is invalid. The piece is an in-depth biographical profile on Patterson. The fact that the article includes a handful of quotes from the subject is normal journalistic practice and does not render it non-independent or unreliable. (I am tempted to say "it's almost as if you didn't read" the article, but I'll resist doing so.)
 * (5) You incorrectly assert that "the rest have been discussed". In fact, you have completely ignored significant coverage in many of the sources cited above, including: (a) "Bronx native discusses basketball and mental health amid COVID-19", AM New York; (b) Former Sage basketball player has new focus", Times-Union; and (c) "Professional basketball player gets help from local trainer to get career back on track", Central Jersey newspaper group.
 * (6) My conclusion on a further review: Your AfD nomination was made in good faith and raises legitimate concerns about "blackhat" sites. However, this is an athlete who has an interesting story - climbing from The Bronx and Division III to potential rookie of the year in Portugal. That story has garnered significant attention, and even excluding the "blackhat" sites that you highlighted, the coverage remains significant and warrants a "keep" determination. Cbl62 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because a genrically trustable source publishes it doesn't mean that every piece is reliable and more importantly, you are conflating reliability with independent coverage. You're trying to argue that press releases and sponsored advertisements make for independent coverage and you're quite simply 100% wrong. Being interesting doesn't make one notable and I am not going to elaborate on this for an administrator. Your reading of my tone is irrelevant. Cheers. GRINCHIDICAE🎄  22:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not conflated anything. Nor am I arguing that sponsored advertisements count toward notability. It appears that you have fallen into the trap (one that it's easy for all of us do at time) of digging in your heels rather than keeping an open mind to coverage that may have been overlooked at the time of the nomination. Cbl62 (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. FWIW, there is an article dedicated to Marcus Patterson in Yahoo!, which is a major website. desmay (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * yeah, no that's self published/paid for trash. It's the equivalent of a press release, except worse because it's not required to be accurate. GRINCHIDICAE🎄  02:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article on Yahoo is from the website Latestly.com (see here), a website where you can apparently pay someone on Fiverr.com to write an article about you. Same goes for Mid-Day. Actually, most of these sites that have articles about him are the same sites you can pay someone on fiverr.com an article about you on. Alvaldi (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately needs to get up to speed on paid for article writing services, their unfortunately poorly researched Keep vote here does them a significant dis-service. Nick (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As noted above, I do not approve of paid article writing services and therefore would discount some of the coverage. That said, there has been no contention that the following four feature stories are paid:, , , . I have no stake in this article and am simply calling balls and strikes as I see them.  Best, Cbl62 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam, given the black hat SEO sourcing. I've blocked the creator for spamming. MER-C 15:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Most of the sources they've used were heavily spammed on Wikidata last year and was choice of most spammer or paid editors. Also this player doesn't seems to satisfy notability criteria. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, lacking multiple independent, reliable sources of significant coverage. Not everything on the internet is automatically reliable. Enough concern expressed by others, and I'm not convinced about these sources. Contrary to some comments above, WP:NBASKETBALL only applies to leagues explicitly listed, not just any pro league.—Bagumba (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.