Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Masthay


 * 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 keep. This debate has focused on notability. The consensus is that Tim Masthay is notable, and Cbl62 has provided a number of sources which, taken together, prove that Tim Masthay is notable--because there are reliable sources that have noted him. WP:ATHLETE has also been raised, but WP:ATHLETE does not supersede the general notability guideline. While I have all due respect for Wikiprojects, project-specific guidelines such as WP:ATHLETE are not permitted to overrule longstanding Wikipedia-wide guidelines. This debate has been open for a long time and it is no longer necessary to prolong it. NAC— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)'''

Tim Masthay

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and nothing sugests he meets any other potential notability criteria. He has not yet played in a professional game or even been on a team roster during the pre-season games or regular season in the NFL. I initially proded this article, but then I realized it was proded already and deleted last year, but was either recreated or undeleted earlier this year. PackerMania (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 01:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 01:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted in numerous prior college football discussions, the sole purpose of WP:ATHLETE is to establish an automatic inclusionary rule for players who have reached the highest level of a sport. Masthay's status as an All-SEC award winner, a two-time Academic All-American, a Wuerffel Trophy finalist, a finalist for the NCAA's Walter Byers Postgraduate Scholarship, and a Draddy Trophy semi-finalist go a long way to showing notability. More importantly, college football players qualify under the general notability standard if they have been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. A search of the Newsbank database shows that Masthay has been the subject of a decent amount of media coverage focused on him (i.e., not passing references in game coverage). Examples include: (1) Cats kick up nothing special, UK will miss Masthay on kickoffs this season, Lexington Herald-Leader, September 17, 2009, (2) Masthay always giving back, All-sec UK punter stays active in several charities, Lexington Herald-Leader, December 26, 2008, (3) Six Wildcats named AP All-Southeastern Conference, Lindley, Masthay make first team, The Floyd County Times, December 10, 2008, (4) UK punter Masthay named Academic All-America, The Floyd County Times, November 30, 2008, (5) Masthay earns academic honor, Lexington Herald-Leader, November 27, 2008, (6) Masthay on energy-saving kick, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, September 11, 2008, (7) Masthay giving UK edge in field position, The Messenger (Madisonville, KY), September 11, 2008, (8) Masthay on energy-saving kick Kentucky's kicker/punter conserving strength for games, Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, September 11, 2008, (9) Masthay is formidable, but forgotten secret weapon for Wildcats, The Middlesboro Daily News, September 10, 2008, (10) Tim Masthay has worked hard to get stronger and it's paid off, Lexington Herald-Leader, September 6, 2008, (11) Q&A with Tim Masthay, The Gainesville Sun (FL), September 3, 2008, (12) Special teams look good to Brooks,  especially Masthay for kicks and punts, Lexington Herald-Leader, September 1, 2008, (13) African education: UK's punter Masthay discovers value of school for others, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, July 10, 2008, (14) Tamme, Masthay named Academic All-America, The Floyd County Times, December 2, 2007, (15) MASTHAY HOPING EXPERIENCE PAYS OFF,  BROOKS SAYS UK PUNTER HAS IMPROVED A LOT RECENTLY, Lexington Herald-Leader, April 22, 2006, (16) UK SEEKS SOMETHING SPECIAL FROM SPECIAL TEAMS,  BROOKS TAKES PUNTER MASTHAY UNDER HIS WING, Lexington Herald-Leader, August 24, 2005, (17) MASTHAY'S FOOT IS A SIGHT FOR BLUE EYES, MURRAY ALL-STAR COULD HELP UK, Lexington Herald-Leader, June 16, 2005, (18) Masthay nominated for second national honor, WKYT, Oct 1, 2008, (19) Punter signs with Packers, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 15, 2010, (20) Masthay named first-team Academic All-American, WKYT, Nov 26, 2008, (21) Masthay a Draddy Trophy Semifinalist, Kentucky Sports Report, Oct. 9, 2008, (22) Masthay A Finalist For Wuerffel Trophy, WKYT, Nov 12, 2008, (23) Masthay a Finalist for Byers Scholarship, UK Sports, April 10, 2009, (24) Masthay a candidate for national excellence award, WKYT, Sep 30, 2008. Cbl62 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Over at Articles for deletion/Britton Colquitt you said that "All-SEC award winner goes along way to showing notability." Ok, but this guy has not been All-SEC. So athletics-related academic awards now qualify? Where is the line, or do all college athletes qualify? And if these sources (almost exclusively local pieces) are so relevant, why not add them to the article to improve it and show notability in the article? PackerMania (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Masthay has received, or been a finalist for, numerous significant awards and has received extensive media coveage. And he was an All-SEC player.  There is no one magic formula for notability.  If someone is not notable, based on the objective criteria, I have voted in the past to delete.  Masthay is pretty clearly notable.  Adding the sources to the article to improve it is a good idea, but the question here is whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is a "good" quality article.  For now, I'll add the articles to the talk page with an invitation to anyone who has an interest in Masthay or UK athletics to integrate them into the article. Cbl62 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * keep I wasn't impressed at first, but there sure seems to be a lot of reliable sources on the player. WOrth at least a stub.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RELISTINGISEVIL--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment I still don't see it. If he won one of the national awards or was All-American (making him akin to a WP:ATHLETE #2), fine. All there is is a whole lot of trivial coverage in local papers. And in repsone to Paul McDonald, I kind of see his point, but there is no policy indicating a person is "worth a stub" is there? PackerMania (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * response fair question, one deserving a reply! By "worth at stub" I mean that in my view the subject matter has passed the WP:GNG - sometimes called "General Notability Guideline" by wikipedians.  It's not a "policy" but I would say that most of notability is not policy-driven and instead is consensus-driven.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cb162's sources. WP:ATHLETE is an additional way to establish notability; failure to pass it does not mean an athlete is not notable.  Regardless of whether or not he satisfies WP:ATHLETE, Masthay clearly passes WP:N by a wide margin, which is the dominant relevant policy here.  See also the basic notability guidelines for biographies at WP:BASIC.  As to the argument that the coverage is local only (which I'm not necessarily convinced of), generally speaking, notability in a local context is still notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2010 (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.