Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Tocco

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 no consensus. Ged UK 12:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Tocco[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable former minor league baseball announcer. All but one of the sources are PR pieces from teams he worked for. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found this article – Cats' announcer knows someone is listening: 'Radio is the true art,' 24-year-old Tocco says - Charleston Daily Mail | HighBeam Research – it is a feature on him written in 2001. I am not sure it counts as "significant", but it is a feature article written about him. Go Phightins! 00:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source is acceptable, but a single article -- particularly from a regional publication -- does not sufficiently demonstrate "significant coverage". Additional sources are needed to establish notability. Levdr1lp / talk 10:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, and I was more talking whether this article coupled with already included sources counts as "significant", and am going to say that between the article I found, the article from an ABC local station ([1]), and the article proclaiming him Southern League Radio Broadcaster of the Year ([2]), he has received significant-enough coverage to at least justify temporarily keeping until additional sources can be ascertained. As such, I support keeping the article, albeit weakly. Go Phightins! 11:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional coverage: a trivial mention from MiLB.com [3], a not trivial mention from MiLB.com (an announcement of his award and summation of his career) [4], and a one-on-one interview from the former Tampa Bay Devil Rays' (now Tampa Bay Rays) chapter of SB Nation ([5]). Go Phightins! 11:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Delete The ABC-Montgomery and SB Nation sources are "significant" enough, but aside from the Charleston Daily Mail link, I can't find anything else online. And as the nominator points out, the other sources in the article read like PR fluff. Same for the MiLB.com links. Subject is a former Double-A minor league baseball announcer and not particularly notable. Levdr1lp / talk 12:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if you agree the SB Nation source, the ABC-Montgomery source, and the feature article are all "significant coverage", than wouldn't he meet GNG, regardless of the fact that he was only a Double-A announcer? Go Phightins! 20:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per WP:GNG, "multiple sources are generally expected" to establish notability, and I don't consider three sources "multiple". Moreover, satisfying GNG only presumes notability -- we're still talking about a former minor league announcer here. WP:INDISCRIMINATE Levdr1lp / talk 05:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so are you saying that the article violates WP:NOT or WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as per WP:GNG: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because someone was a minor league announcer does not automatically disqualify them from being notable, particularly when there are three (and for the record, two has been counted as "multiple" in the past; admittedly "multiple" is highly ambiguous and vague) varied sources that cover him in different respects (one a feature, another announcing an award, another announcing a new position, and no pun intended on the last two

), I would just have to think that meets GNG. Go Phightins! 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not basing my position only on the fact this subject is a former minor league baseball announcer-- I would think that's obvious. My primary concern is the lack of coverage. In my view, three sources, one of which is clearly local (ABC-Montgomery), just aren't enough to demonstrate notability. Can a former minor league baseball announcer be notable? Certainly. Does this subject meet GNG? No. Levdr1lp / talk 12:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 25 January 2014 (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.