Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid Mahon


 * 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. Coverage too slender to satisfy GNG; does not meet ATHLETE standards Drmies (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Reid Mahon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non notable minor league baseball player no longer in affiliated ball so unlikely to make the majors. Spanneraol (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Coverage here, here, here (same as HighBeam article) might suffice. Seems like a guy with no shot to make it almost made it to MLB. There could be an article here, but I won't vote yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I incorporated those sources and now feel this article merits keeping by GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't consider the sources significant (all local interest news stories by local newspapers) for WP:GNG. Secret account 22:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITSLOCAL, local coverage is as good as national. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, he's recently been scouted by the Minnesota Twins, so he could end up back in affiliated ball. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh no, if the coverage is only local coverage that isn't a strong depth of coverage that is neessary for GNG two of the three sources talks about how Mahon went undrafted as a former college pitcher and reached the minors, which is basically feel good coverage. He wouldn't get that coverage if he was even drafted in the 50th round. WP:BLP1E could apply here also because of the unusual path he went to play minor league ball. "could end back" is crystal balling. Secret account 05:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Local coverage can be strong depth of coverage, especially as it talks about his high school, collegiate, and professional careers in some depth. That he could return to affiliated ball is relevant as it contradicts Spanneraol's main deletion argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The depth is only there because he was an American who was never drafted, thus a human interest story to the local media. That's not significant coverage. "The Twins will be watching.....this summer" is crystal balling and doesn't mean that he's going to return to affiliated baseball, and if he is probably not the majors. It's a WP:BLP1E because his "significant coverage (which isn't)" mostly talks about his unusual path, and just about every minor leaguer will get this coverage anyways from local newspapers. This is an obvious merge candidate but there's nowhere to merge. If he somehow makes the majors or becomes more notable for a reason not involving his unusual way to the minors, we could recreate the article. Secret account 18:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what defines "human interest story", and where that fits in as an exception to GNG. This coverage goes into him in depth, which makes it "significant coverage". It's not BLP1E as there are multiple events covered: his high school career, his collegiate career, and his professional career. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * His notability was mainly because of the path Mahon took to reach the minors, there's nothing else that sets him aside from thousands of other minor leaguers who didn't reach the majors, and he wasn't notable because of his high school or college career. If we say every minor leaguer was notable and deserves an article it's not BLP1E, but because his notability his primarily because of his interesting but clearly not unusual career, it does not set him apart from all the other ones we merged/deleted. Secret account 00:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly not every minor leaguer is notable, but most don't receive even this coverage. I don't think he blows GNG away, but still passes with the minimum requirements. Most minor leaguers are only mentioned in the press in game summary stories and transaction lists. Since this individual has a few writeups, it passes GNG, regardless of how interesting the coverage is. It's the coverage that matters. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The argument above seems to be that he might become notable. He might. If he is not only signed but actually does appear in a major league game, then there can & should be an article. The argument for not including local sources for the notability of local athletes is that they are not discriminating enough to serve as a measure for notability .  DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, my argument from above is that he is notable based on the existing coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree that the sources given are (just) adequate to demonstrate notability under GNG. This is not BLP1E since the sources are not covering a particular "event", and in any case, as a professional player Mahon has received additional coverage in reliable sources at least in game summaries.  While such coverage by itself would be inadequate to demonstrate notability, it does negate the BLP1E requirement that "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Rlendog (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG and per failure to satisfy WP:BIO Edison (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's pretty rich. Let's all look at WP:GNG, shall we?
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * Clearly, the sources address the subject directly in detail, referring to him in the titles even. These articles are non-trivial.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * Nobody is questioning the reliability of those sources
 * "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
 * These are indeed secondary sources, and the coverage comes from multiple sources
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.
 * Again, nobody is questioning this.
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
 * If this violates, what Wikipedia is not, then the article doesn't belong. What policies does it violate?
 * Let's look at WP:BIO...
 * "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"
 * A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.
 * Same basic stuff as I outlined above. I certainly say that his unusual career trajectory is interesting and unusual enough to deserve attention.
 * It seems to me that people are voting delete because this person isn't particularly famous, even within his own craft. That's not a reason to delete an article. Career minor leaguers can still be notable, as long as they meet the above criteria, which as far as I can see, it does. I am strongly opposed to the deletion of this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG above. The slender coverage does not satisfy notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:18, 4 May 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.