Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Titus (4th nomination)
- 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. Cirt (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Mark Titus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- This is a cool guy who is nonetheless a non-notable basketball player. I can not see the prior versions, but independent analysis of the extant version borders on notability by mentions in WP:RS. However, I don't think this is the way WP:N and especially WP:ATHLETE are suppose to be interpreted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This article should not be WP:CSDed because of the recent media mentions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The New York Times and Pittsburgh Tribune consider him notable enough to be the subject of their articles. Who am I to argue? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. IMO misguided nomination. He got his notoriety exactly because he turned his being mediocre player into an asset. Xuz (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Pretty sure that the NY Times counts as significant coverage. Artw (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As the Pittsburgh Tribune said, "Titus is famous for riding the pine". (emphasis added) --Griseum (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He got his notoriety exactly because he turned his being mediocre player into an asset, however he did get the notoriety.
- Keep - All deletion discussion should have been finished even before the NYT article was published (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/sports/ncaabasketball/27blogger.html) back in December. I'm honestly dumbfounded people are so insistent on deleting it after so many major media outlets have covered his story. What more do you need exactly, a 60 Minutes feature on him? Ranatoro (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - receives significant coverage in major media sources. I have no idea why this keeps getting nominated and deleted despite these. matt91486 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable media personality, enough said Skalskal (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — college basketball players aren't notable for being college basketball players (he fails WP:ATHLETE), but the amount of coverage means that he passes the general notable guideline, so failing WP:ATHLETE really isn't relevant. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He was also featured in a recent edition of Playboy, a magazine with millions of readers. Featured twice on ESPN's BS Report, a podcast with millions of subscribers. The fact is, the person is famous. When people google his name they should be able to see a wikipedia page that offers a comprehensive look at his playing career and notoriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.52.181 (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2010 (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.