Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Motuzas

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. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 15:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Motuzas[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus is that bullpen catchers must pass WP:GNG and, from what I could find, Motuzas doesn't. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "From what I could find" is usually code for "I didn't bother looking." Motuzas has received significant coverage from many popular sources like the Wall Street Journal and ESPN. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Alex (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unconvinced that we need an article about a bullpen catcher/former minor leaguer simply because he has received coverage that is either routine or related to his weird stunts (which aren't even mentioned in our article). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see Wikipedia's biggest troll is back at it. Alex is mad he lost on the notability discussion so now he's trying to save each bullpen catcher page by posting trivial citations. The list above has maybe one story that counts as significant, while the others are typical of what any good local athlete receives. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Alex produced several newspaper articles reporting on his college and minor league excellence, plus a long WSJ article about his eccentricities and a short ESPN article about them. I can't say we "need" an article about Motuzas, but the same could probably said about 3 million or so Wikipedia articles. Multiple reliable sources found him notable enough to report on, meeting GNG, and if the problem is that these sources are not included in the article then the solution is to add them. Rlendog (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG, All those listed are either trivial mentions or crappy cites that don't belong here. –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Street Journal and The Telegraph both have substantive articles on Motuzas that are far more than a "trivlal mention." How are those crappy sites? And while the ESPN article on Motuzas is short, not sure how it is deemed to be merely a "trivial mention." Rlendog (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC. The articles posted above have been described as all being "either trivial mentions or crappy cites", but this is not particularly accurate, although a couple of them are short articles. Source examples providing direct, significant coverage about the subject include: [10], [11], [12], [13]. Shorter articles include [14] and [15]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000 and Rlendog. If sources exist, they don't need to be in the article. Plus, if you're a baseball fan, these are good stories. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rlendog's reasoning. Spanneraol (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last three keep votes don't seem to understand what "significant" means. Two stories about some silly stunts hardly counts as "significant" coverage. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:N, "Significant coverage" "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that 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." The reason for the coverage is not an issue. The alternative is circular. It is the fact that reliable sources found the subject significant that makes the subject notable for Wikipedia. If reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal and ESPN found Motuzas to be significant enough to write a full length article about and a short article about, it is not for us to say that those reliable sources were covering him for "silly" reasons so it doesn't count. And of course other sources covered him for reasons pertaining to his minor league baseball career. Rlendog (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.