Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Stuart


 * 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. Despite a leaning "delete", consensus seems to be divided between "keep" and "delete". Nonetheless, anyone is free to add any of the sources indicated in this discussion to the article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Morgan Stuart

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

NN college softball player, fails the GNG going away, with only one semi-valid source from a small town paper. The other sources are casual mentions, primary sources and the subject's Twitter feed. Meets no criteria of NSPORTS. Article created by a SPA who had almost no edits outside this article.   Ravenswing     19:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Softball and Philippines.   Ravenswing      19:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women,  and California.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with above, all I can find is the article in the Irvine newspaper. Lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. For one thing, there seems to be insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. My google search found some interviews in regional Southern California websites  and a second, 2019 article in The Press-Enterprise in Riverside . However, Stuart was a Women's College World Series All-Tournament honoree as part of the championship winning team in 2009, which should qualify her in WP:NCOLLATH. Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. The bar in NCOLLATH is set very high, and that bar involves either being named All-American, being a national champion in an individual sport, or being the best player in the nation at their position.  Being named to an "all-tournament team" is well below that standard.   Ravenswing      11:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But that all-tournament team honor was for the national championship. Arbor to SJ (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As may be, but that still satisfies no notability criteria, NCOLLATH included. We decide on AfDs based on the notability criteria in place, not on how we wish they might read, or on WP:ITSIMPORTANT arguments.  Stuart never was national champion in an individual sport.  She was never named an All-American.  She never won an award for being the best player in the nation at her position.  She was never elected into a NCAA Hall of Fame in her sport. There is no element of NCOLLATH she meets, and your argument that she does is just not borne out by the facts.   Ravenswing      19:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So the Women's College World Series All-Tournament award does not count as a "national award" in WP:NCOLLATH? Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. Far from an individual honor, twelve players were named to the All-Tournament team. Nor was Stuart even the tournament MVP; her teammate Danielle Lawrie was.   Ravenswing      06:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that per WP:NSPORT, WP:NCOLLATH doesn't supersede WP:GNG. When taken to AfD, all sport subjects must show that they have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, regardless of whether they pass any sports-specific notability guideline. Alvaldi (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:BIO per Arbor's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. The Shoutoutsocal and SD Voyager articles are interviews with no significant input from the reporter and thus are primary sources (the only real coverage in the article comes from the subject herself). The Press-Enterprise article has minor input from the reporter but its really nothing more than informing us that the subject holds softball clinics. I did a search on Newspapers.com but only found some match reports that mentioned her. I did come across this Press-Enterprise during a Google search and I would consider this as significant coverage. However, GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage (and from different publications, so other pe.com articles don't count). If somebody finds additional significant coverage, I am more than happy to reconsider my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not much in terms of WP:SIGCOV except for an article in her hometown paper. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: May I suggest that with four advocates of deletion (including the nom), against two keep votes based on a misunderstanding of NCOLLATH, consensus is already in place, and no further relistings are necessary?   Ravenswing     06:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree on this SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Same here. In addition to not actually passing NCOLLATH, NSPORTS in general has been depreciated and this subject does not pass GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. Search results from Seattle Post-Intelligencer are here. Results for The Seattle Times found here. I'm not invested enough in the topic to pay to review the results to assess depth, but someone interested in saving the article may wish to do so. Cbl62 (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2022 (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.