Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Costa

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. (former-admin close) Secret ^account 23:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Costa

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

Former college athlete and current broadcaster. His athletic career doesn't meet the standards of WP:NCOLLATH as he hasn't been the coverage of national media; he was a part of a winning team but that doesn't confer notability. His journalism career doesn't meet the standards of WP:CREATIVE. All references except one are to either to the Oregon football team official home page or to local newspapers. Recommend delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Portland Tribune is not a local media outlet, nor has it been considered a local media outlet for a very long time. A quick google search of 'Nate Costa' will show you that he is in fact an individual player who recieves national media attention. There are articles written about him that span from the east coast all the way to the west coast. I am not sure what other criteria must be yet for this individual. It is obvious that he clears the criteria laid out by wikipedia on this subject. This biography should not be deleted, because it easily meets the standards required by wikipedia for collegiate athletes. That standard being the third standard of an individual who gains national media as an individual, not just as a member of a successful team. Recommend that this article not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factual1111 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly IS The Portland Tribune if not a local media outlet? Besides being Bob Pamplin's pet project, that is. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN, Sporting News, and NBC Sports are all national media outlets. You cannot argue that fact. They are also, all sources for this biography. These sources obviously satisfy the national media coverage for an individual criteria. There are many more articles from sources just like this. If you want to continue to contest this entry, I can continue to provide national media examples specifically about this individual.Factual1111 (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets the WP:GNG, independent reliable sources wrote articles about him as an individual. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles from national media outlets are about the games, not about Costa. The 10/9/10 article on NBCSports gives a one-line mention of Costa. The 5/2/10 quotes him because there was a discussion about who would be team QB. The ESPN, Sporting News, and Scout.com articles are about *one* game Costa was in, since he came in as a backup; he wasn't really the subject of the article. That doesn't make him notable per WP:ONEEVENT. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that your trying not to lose this battle. Your attempts are valient, but they are not justified. I just added 5+ more references from national media outlets, about entirely separate events. There are literally hundred of more articles that I can continue to add to this person's bio. This just further proves the point that the individual is of national sports media importance. Feel free to continue to challenge the sources that I have provided. I can easily provide hundreds more, if that is what you are looking for. This person's accomplishments and national media recognition as an individual certainly pass the criteria laid out by wikipedia for this subject. You are running out of ways to deny the entry, and I have many, many more sources to prove my case. Perhaps you should run a google search and see for yourself, there are endless articles about this individual about numerous games and topics, all from the national media. Be my guest, and do some of your own research. Factual1111 (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, the NYTimes article is not about Costa, and quotes him twice. http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/preview?gameId=302472483 is about the game and only mentions Costa in passing. I'm sure you can keep finding articles that have the word "Costa" in them, but he is only appearing in these articles because he was a player on a team; those articles aren't about him. Per WP:ATHLETE he - Costa - needs coverage about him, and notability is not inherited. Reiterate delete --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes under the GNG/BIO. BTW, there is no requirement for national media coverage. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was just created today and still needs work to whip it into proper shape. I've wikified it somewhat, fixed some of the citation formatting, and added an infobox. College football players qualify under WP:GNG if they have been the subject of non-trivial coverage in mainstream media sources. A quick search of news databases shows that Costa has been the subject of such coverage. Some of those sources have now been added to the article. Because he has also been the subject of national media coverage (e.g., ESPN.com, Fox Sports, Associated Press), he also passes WP:NCOLLATH #3. Either of these standards is enough to keep, and he meets both. Cbl62 (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Div I FBS quarterbacks tend to generate enough coverage to meet the general notability guideline and it appears that this QB has done so easily.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2011 (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.