Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Socoby


 * 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, I see consensus that coverage in local newspapers in not enough. Max Semenik (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark Socoby

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not the place for mid-major guards who leave school early. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 04:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Comment - This !vote above by (Eddy) User:Editorofthewiki carries no weight; it's a hasty generalization based entirely upon personal opinion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Exactly. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Comment - See below, more reliable sources that address the topic in detail have been added to the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Comment - See WP:NTEMP, Notability is not temporary. Once a topic has been received significant coverage in reliable sources, ongoing coverage is not required to qualify topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Funny, I used that same clause to justify deleting. Particularly the last part: "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual".  This guy received pretty much all his coverage based on leaving the team, game reports and standard season preview articles.  Over two years ago, btw, and hasn't been heard from since. Rikster2 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * Comment - There are several articles that constitute significant coverage about the subject himself. See below for some of them. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 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   D r e a m Focus  01:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Delete fails WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage.  Coverage is largely about specific games and not this player and are routine in nature.  Additionally there is no clear claim of notability in this article. RadioFan (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep – These three articles in the Socoby artcle are entirely about Socoby, and constitute significant coverage in reliable sources.
 * Socoby to leave UMaine
 * Summer Ball is helping Socoby make transition
 * Socoby ready for leadership role ; Men's basketball: He's just a sophomore, but UMaine's Mark Socoby is used to being a leader.
 * — This topic clearly passes WP:GNG. The first two definitely do not constitute routine coverage, and the third is paywalled, and I'm unable to access the entire article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – Added more sources to the article, including significant, in-depth, national coverage from MSN-Fox Sports. This even further establishes topic notability.
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think it is telling that there are no news stories on this guy since 2009. Notability is not temporary.  Most of the coverage stems from his leaving the Maine team under slightly unexpected terms.  He hasn't been in the news for 2 and a half years and wasn't heavily covered even then outside standard game reports, standard issue team season previews and his leaving.  Rikster2 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The latest sources identified is a news spike over a single event of a player leaving a school, but lacks WP:INDEPTH coverage to show that it is "significant and not in passing." WP is WP:NOT on an otherwise WP:Run-of-the-mill amateur player. Also, multiple articles from Bangor Daily News counts only as one source per GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep because I see multiple non-trivial mentions in RS and that meets the GNG.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment this "flag for rescue" designation on a page nominated for deletion is pretty interesting. Is there a similar bat signal that goes out to those Wikipedians who have a really high standard for inclusion?  Not sure I get how that's much different from canvassing.  At the end of the day, as a guy who is a deep expert on basketball in general and college basketball in particular, I just want to know where the water line is for notability of players.  It could be quite freeing for this to go through, since any player I'd ever be interested in creating would have at least 10x the press coverage this guy did (and some of those guys have been put up for AfD). Rikster2 (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely on both points. I did notice the flag for rescue and thought the same thing. In this particular case, it's more of a call to arms than it is a legitimate use of that tag, which is supposed to be for topics that clearly demonstrate notability but may be deleted on the basis for lack of references. And not to beat a dead horse, but the PRODded Harold Jensen article (which has been restored) is, in my scientific calculations, about a zillion times more notable than whoever the heck Mark Socoby is. Notability is not temporary, and Socoby might as well be a poster child for temporary notability. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The rescue tag, in its correct purpose, encourages users to find sources to prove an article's notability when sources are hard to find. Nowadays, however, it is frequently misused and simply serves as a way for editors who want articles kept to canvas a group of voters known for !voting keep to a discussion, even if the existence of sources isn't the matter of the deletion discussion. It's unfortunate, since the tag itself when correctly used serves a great purpose.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Take this comment for what it's worth, but the creator of the article (User:Namiba) is heavily involved in Maine topics, ranging from places and buildings to biographies of politicians and athletes who all have strong connections to that state, or teams in that state (e.g. Maine Black Bears or Maine Red Claws). It's not against Wikipedia guidelines to heavily edit one topic area - we all do it, I'm pretty sure - but when that blind devotion to a specific overall group of articles trumps one's ability to recognize who/what should be included in an international encyclopedia, that is when it becomes a conflict of interest. I am a huge college basketball editor and still learn something new about it everyday, but I pride myself on being able to step back and judge what actually deserves inclusion on Wikipedia. I had never heard of Mark Socoby and his article seemed non-notable, but before I knee-jerk AfD'd it, I tried to see if I was the one who was being too critical by researching him myself. It was at that point that I realized he is a non-notable basketball player and IMO shouldn't be on here. We just all need to keep perspectives of things in check and not follow suit to a general topic so strongly that we argue for its inclusion just because we are personally interested in it. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have also created 367 articles regarding Namibia, 84 articles on Angola, 78 articles on Sierra Leone, 56 articles on South Africa and 54 biographies of American football players. This isn't about my record of creating articles of quality and working to end Wikipedia's systematic bias. This is hardly "blind devotion"; if the articles didn't pass WP:GNG, I would have no objection to deletion. When articles are written about a player makes no difference whatsoever. I would really appreciate it if you would assume good faith.--TM 20:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I like to err on the side of caution with cases of athletes, especially college ones. When they fail WP:NCOLLATH, coverage should be beyond the trivial.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The  effect of the rescue tag was to get more sources added. That's a very proper use of the  tag. It did not seem to  produce an overwhelming hoard of keep !voters. I've rarely seen one that did, unless the topic is so appealing that people would comment anyway.  DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete We have the right to say by consensus when the GNG does and does not apply--both to say when such sources are not needed, and when to say they are not sufficient. All Wikipedia guidelines are flexible, and this one especially is, because it says so specifically. In this case, the question is the value of local newspaper coverage of a college athlete. I consider it the same worth as college newspaper coverage in such cases: not adequate to show notability. the ATHLETE guidelines are too wide as it is, without trying to extend them yet further.(I would not necessarily oppose a balanced change to less coverage of unimportant professionals in minor teams, and more on college athletes on major teams, but I foresee a very long discussion before we get there.)  DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 8 January 2012 (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.