Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ty Maurin


 * 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. Tone 06:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Ty Maurin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD removed for procedural reasons. Footballer that fails WP:GNG. Although the individual technically meets the presumption of notability set by WP:NFOOTY, there is no significant coverage of the individual. Additionally, as the individual has retired, they are unlikely to ever attain notability. Jay eyem (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This is collegiate SIGCOV, local but front page of the L.A. Times - it appears he played in the collegiate championship. Mentioned numerous times throughout his Dallas Burn career in spite of his few minutes on the field, including          (do not mistake quantity of sources for quality of sources, but I did want to note them.) Super borderline. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is way more than my WP:BEFORE search turned up, I have no idea how you found those sources. They appear to be behind a paywall or something, as I can only read the text. The fact that he was on a championship winning team seems like a fairly glaring omission for the article and wasn't even something I uncovered. I was able to find a box score that shows him substituted in during the championship game as well. I definitely think the sources that aren't the LA Times are trivial mentions and routine coverage, but I'm not sure the LA Times coverage is that significant. I agree that this seems like the most borderline of borderline cases. Jay eyem (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a simple Newspapers.com search combined with a bit of patience (the patience was mostly out of interest.) SportingFlyer  T · C  00:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - cannot access the sources presented by SF but "SIGCOV [...] front page of the LA Times", combined with everything else and his time as a pro in the MLS is enough for me. GiantSnowman 20:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it was the front page of the sports section. Didn't make it clear enough. But he was over the fold. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to get a bit more feedback regarding sources presented. Any other thoughts from folks savvy with baseball? Thanks everyone for assuming good faith and participating!
 * Delete. One article that, despite the headline, from the snippets on Newspapers does not appear SIGCOV, and a bunch that definitely aren't, does not convince me that he meets GNG. Moreover, I couldn't find that article in the LA Times archives for that date; in fact, I can't find any of the headlines in the Newspapers.com preview there. This is the front page of the Sports section according to the archives. However, the strange email under the section masthead of the "Maurin" newspaper version indicates this was actually a local supplement to the LA Times, called "Inland Valley", which had a much much smaller circulation. JoelleJay (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep This will never be the best sourced article, as only one of the sources I've brought to the table is a clear feature article, but there's enough there and it's varied to write somewhere between a stub and a start article. He was also discussed on mlssoccer.com, but clicking their archives redirects to the main website - nice work there, league (typically the league's journalism is independent from the team in the U.S. so would arguably count towards notability). I didn't vote earlier because I was effectively neutral, but after seeing this relisted (uh, it's not a baseball article) it doesn't make sense to me to delete an article for a (yes, marginal) top flight football player on the grounds they only had one feature article written specifically about them even though there's more than enough coverage of them to write an article. The UCLA media guide also says the foul he drew directly led to the winning goal in the NCAA tournament. But it's also a weak keep: essentially, this really could go either way, but I don't think redirecting this to the Dallas Burn player list benefits the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * SportingFlyer, I'm reluctant to consider the "Bruins' Maurin hopes to do Dallas" article as truly IRS SIGCOV since it's in the sports section of a hyper-local LA Times supplement. It's hard for me to give much more weight to a college-level profile that is only in-depth because it's in basically the town paper (think "local boy makes it big" -- they emphasize that he's an "area player"). JoelleJay (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've considered that and I still think this is a weak keep. The story is significant coverage, but the entire point of GNG's notability concern is to give us enough sourcing to write a reliable secondary independent article on him, and that's met here - he didn't get any feature articles for playing for the Burn, which is why he's at AfD in the first place, but there's more than enough there to write a reliable article.SportingFlyer  T · C  14:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree there is enough material for an article -- my concern is that the bulk of it is essentially on the non- or less-notable parts of his career (as reflected by the lack of multiple RS and the constrained geographic scope). Is what he has enough to qualify for NCOLLATH? Because if not, the fact he had a brief, non-notable pro career shouldn't factor into the assessment of notability. JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are multiple reliable sources from California, Texas, and arguably mlssoccer.com. Not everyone who plays in MLS will necessarily qualify for an article, but that will be the exception rather than the rule, and while his career was brief, we can say enough about him (from reliable sources) that keeping the article is a better alternative than redirecting to the list of FC Dallas players (which I assume would be the alternative.) I've mentioned before it's borderline, I'm not expecting everyone to share my opinion. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets NFootball, and no shortage of references that are suitable for writing an article. I've expanded the article a bit with text and some references. The project would be better served if people would spend a month improving the article, without debating about what part of the LA Times an article is in (it's pretty clear from going back and forth in Newspapers.com that it's from a local insert of the LA Times) - that article should also be added. Nfitz (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per SportingFlyer. passes NFOOTY and though GNG is a little marginal, there seems to be enough around to pass GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2021 (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.