Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Maston


 * 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 on the strength of the source analysis. As for the claim that "multiple is two", simply counting refs is the lowest possible bar for the GNG—discuss the merits of their contents. czar 17:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Terry Maston

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable basketball player. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. PROD removed by article creator. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there is a lean to Keep, they need to cite the specific refs they are relying on at AfD
 * Keep I see non-trivial coverage in the Waco Tribune and the Atlanta Constitution. Multiple sources denotes WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , "multiple" is not what GNG says. "Significant" is what it says. This looks significant to you? It doesn't to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG with multiple coverage in RS. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 18:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * One article in two sources is now considered "significant" coverage? :/ – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of multiple, independent, reliable sources of significant coverage. In case anyone considers OurDailyBears.com, I generally don't consider SB Nation reliable. Also consider guideline WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. There's not enough coverage to take it beyond it's current stub state. Even the current state is exaggerated with unneeded sections at this point. Per MOS:BODY: Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. (And let's not resort to WP:NOTDIARY and excessive stat line fillers.)—Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, articles in two different sources is enough to pass WP:GNG despite some others' assertions above. Read the guideline, people. Smartyllama (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've read 'em. It doesn't say "two" anywhere. It says "significant coverage" and that AJC.com piece is insignificant. There is one piece of significant coverage presented here, which is not "multiple sources". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would consider the AJC source significant. You should also read WP:BADGERING given your behavior in this AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I can rebut your point without badgering. The AJC source is a minor mention. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It's an extreme interpretation of "multiple sources" to mean just 2 sources.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Multiple sources" has always meant two or more. That's what multiple means and how it's always been interpreted. Not even sure why this was relisted - myself and others have cited the AJC piece and the Waco Tribune piece specifically. Smartyllama (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it's not just a count of the number of votes, it's an assessment of the arguments. And really, it's $1 1/2$ sources. The Waco Tribune piece is legit, but the AJC piece is more of a routine mention piece. Keeping this article would be a watering down of WP:SIGCOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not commented on this despite my initial prod, but it is mostly because I am not sure how much weight to give a sixth-man conference award in terms of significance. It seems minimal to me, especially because the AJC article appears to be the only coverage and it is a re-print of something called "Diehards". (At the bottom: The post Baylor F Terry Maston wins Big 12 Sixth Man of the Year, two others honored appeared first on Diehards.) Possibly a contributor-written non-RS source, but I can find no details on what "Diehards" is or was. It simply redirects to the college sports section of AJC these days. Yosemiter (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , all I can see is that www.diehards.com redirects to the AJC college sports page. Conference sixth man awards are not significant enough for WP:NCOLLATH, not that anyone is proposing that anyway. It all comes down to assessment of the depth of the AJC piece, and, if it counts as "significant", whether or not "two" sources (the AJC piece and Waco Trib) are enough for GNG. The AJC piece has six short paragraphs, the first three are about Maston and the last three don't mention him. These are the three paragraphs (without the paragraph breaks) in the AJC article about Maston:
 * Baylor basketball forward Terry Maston earned Big 12 Sixth Man of the Year for his performance throughout the 2017-18 season. Point guard Manu Lecomte and center Jo Lual-Acuil were also honored. Maston earned sixth man honors after leading a massive turnaround in conference play. The Bears went on a five-game winning streak to move back into NCAA tournament contention. Maston averaged more than 16 points per game over the streak.Overall, he reached 20 points five times in Big 12 play. The Bears went 4-1 in those games. For the season, Maston averaged 10.8 points and 5.6 rebounds per game in just 22 minutes. He’s the fourth Baylor player to win the award along with LaceDarius Dunn (2009), Quincy Acy (2011) and Taurean Prince (2015).
 * I see this as insignificant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So, I did some digging into DieHards. It was a series of college sports media websites owned by the Cox Media Group. It was launched in late 2017 and shuttered in early 2018 with all former websites republished/archived under the AJC website. So it was not contributor-based like SBNation, but it is also a site you would absolutely expect to see a list of award winners covered, in this case by Baylor and Big 12 beat writer Shehan Jeyarajah. The reason I was hesitant was if this had actually been published in the AJC itself, I probably would not have called it routine. But, as it was a Baylor reporter reporting on Baylor and the Big12 on a Big12/Baylor specific website (originally published on diehards.com/big-12 or diehards.com/baylor, the actual link appears to be missing in Wayback), then it would be WP:ROUTINE, especially considering the brevity of the subject's coverage as described above. This may not change the opinion of the keep voters, but they should at least be informed that it was not published in the AJC. Because of these reasons, I lean towards delete with only very minor local coverage (1 non-routine article in the Waco paper about a player in Waco, and only after he won an award, and a few sentences about conference awards in a conference-specific sports website). Yosemiter (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for this! – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to badger anyone, but do any of you keep voters wish to re-evaluate the GNG evaluations based on the fact that the Baylor-based press release that was archived at the AJC website was not published by the Atlanta Journal Constitution? If your opinion has not changed, that is fine, it just seems that it was assumed that your GNG evaluations were based on it being published by AJC itself and not a school-specific news site. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for this! – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to badger anyone, but do any of you keep voters wish to re-evaluate the GNG evaluations based on the fact that the Baylor-based press release that was archived at the AJC website was not published by the Atlanta Journal Constitution? If your opinion has not changed, that is fine, it just seems that it was assumed that your GNG evaluations were based on it being published by AJC itself and not a school-specific news site. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails NSPORTS, coverage of college career is minor and local and does not establish notability. Reywas92Talk 06:46, 12 November 2019 (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.