Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Latshaw
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. v/r - TP 20:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bob Latshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable minor league baseball figure. He managed for many seasons, but rarely ever managed a full season and never won a league championship. His playing career, though long, does not appear notable. Despite playing for a basketball team, he does not appear to pass WP:NBASKETBALL, as the "American Basketball League" is not listed as one the of "notable" leagues. Alex (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, for all these pages of non-notable individuals you created, you can just nominate them for speedy deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How do I know if they're non-notable if I don't pass them through the AfD filter? Just because I think they're non-notable doesn't mean consensus thinks they're non-notable. Alex (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article seems to assert that the subject is notable, it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria. Whether that assertion is correct or not is a question for AFD, which is why we're here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would if he is the only major author to the page. It could be deleted under G7 as author request. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article seems to assert that the subject is notable, it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria. Whether that assertion is correct or not is a question for AFD, which is why we're here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How do I know if they're non-notable if I don't pass them through the AfD filter? Just because I think they're non-notable doesn't mean consensus thinks they're non-notable. Alex (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of obvious notability. If there were sources that talk about this individual specifically, there might be a better case for notability here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - For a few reasons.
- I am not sure the American Basketball League does not fall under the "similar major professional sports league" clause within criterion 1 of WP:NBASKETBALL
- I am not comfortable asserting that players who played significant numbers of games in top minor leagues like the AA before expansion, and particularly before their teams became Major League affiliates, are not notable. I am not sure how to find the old coverage on line, but the fact that this player is mentioned in a number of books published post 1990 [1] makes me think it is very likely he received significant coverage during his playing/managing days, even if the book mentions in the Google Book search may not be enough on their own to prove notability. Rlendog (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for the same reasons mentioned by Rlendog in the preceding comment. Also, this is yet another page created by Alex being nominated for deletion by none other than Alex. What gives? Since when is the AfD process an acceptable substitute for making a proper analysis of notability before a user creates an article in the first place? NY-13021 (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you saying keep because you don't like the fact that I nominated a guy that I created the article for? If so, that is not a valid reason to keep it and is borderline WP:POINTy. But the reason I often nominate guys I wrote articles for is because when I'm writing them, I think of them as article worthy...but often months on I review their articles (often by happenstance) and think "what was I thinking?" and AfD it. Alex (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I voted Keep because of the second sentence in Item #2 in Rlendog's comment above. That said, I bet you've AfD'd at least 20 pages in recent months that you originally created. I'd respectfully suggest that if you have such trouble understanding who and what passes or fails WP:GNG and/or WP:BASE/N, then maybe you should take a time out from creating pages and/or making AfD nominations. This habit of creating pages and then running them through AfD is both lame and counter to Wiki policy. — NY-13021 (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not gonna happen. I love the condescending tone so many Wikipedia users have. Alex (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It wasn't meant to be condescending; it was meant as a good-faith suggestion. I'm astonished your little habit of creating pages and then running them through AfD hasn't drawn scrutiny from higher-ups. A first-day user of Wikipedia knows that the burden is on a page's creator to establish notability and to be able to defend an AfD rather than advocate for an AfD. For whatever reason, you seem to see AfD as your little sandbox, and it's both odd and contrary to Wiki policy. — NY-13021 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm tired of these AFDs as well. One AFD was an article he created in late July. Don't make the article if you don't think it's notable. Please stop creating this needless busy-work. Look at Jesús Tiamo, created recently. No reliable sources to establish notability at all. Don't bring this to AFD. It needs reliable sources, and **you** should find them, not us. "Not gonna happen." Well that's just swell. We're not going to do your job forever, especially with a dismissive attitude like that. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 14:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what? This has been going on for over a year now. You were asked to stop repeatedly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Novosel. We're requesting it again. Stop. I've had enough of this. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 14:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't understand why people get so worked up over this. You guys tell me to take a break, but you're the ones getting so upset over it. Chillax. By the way, Taimo is a inherently notable as bullpen catchers are considered coaches. You lose. `Alex (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it really all about 'winning' or 'losing' to you? I'll 'chillax' once you stop creating articles that you know you're going to take to AFD a month later. Even beginners at Wikipedia:Your first article know not to do this. It specifically says, "Gather references both to use as source(s) of the information you will include and also to demonstrate notability of your article's subject matter." You completely fail to do this on the articles you bring to AFD because you expect us to do your work every single time. We're upset because you've deliberately done this almost a hundred times over the past year. Don't create an article unless you can prove that it passes WP:BASE/N or cite reliable sources for WP:GNG. Why is that such a daunting request? "I could. But I'm not going to." What was the point in creating Perry Lipe in July if you know that the subject was a non-notable minor leaguer? If you can't find the sources to back up claims of notability, please don't create the article! Your repeated dismissive attitude on this simple request shows that this will likely require administrative intervention. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 16:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Make articles, not wikidrama." - Vodello userpage. Wikidrama: You're making it. Alex (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Why is it so hard for people to admit they're wrong? Please point to a Wiki policy that says creating pages and then running them through AfD is acceptable. The creator of a page is expected to be able to defend an AfD, not turn around and request an AfD. Beyond that, where did you get the crazy idea that "bullpen catchers are considered coaches"? A bullpen catcher is considered support staff. MLB teams have a manager and a maximum of six coaches. The bullpen coach is a coach; the bullpen catcher is not. — NY-13021 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been established that bullpen catchers are coaches through the six trillion AfDs where people said "keep" because they're coaches. Derp. Alex (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, if a bunch of people in an AfD thread decide that 2+2=5, that doesn't become gospel. As I explained in plain language just one comment ago, a bullpen catcher is not a coach. I guarantee you can't find a single MLB-related citation to support such a claim, because none exist (unless you believe some AfD threads override MLB's rules). — NY-13021 (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been established that bullpen catchers are coaches through the six trillion AfDs where people said "keep" because they're coaches. Derp. Alex (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Why is it so hard for people to admit they're wrong? Please point to a Wiki policy that says creating pages and then running them through AfD is acceptable. The creator of a page is expected to be able to defend an AfD, not turn around and request an AfD. Beyond that, where did you get the crazy idea that "bullpen catchers are considered coaches"? A bullpen catcher is considered support staff. MLB teams have a manager and a maximum of six coaches. The bullpen coach is a coach; the bullpen catcher is not. — NY-13021 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Make articles, not wikidrama." - Vodello userpage. Wikidrama: You're making it. Alex (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it really all about 'winning' or 'losing' to you? I'll 'chillax' once you stop creating articles that you know you're going to take to AFD a month later. Even beginners at Wikipedia:Your first article know not to do this. It specifically says, "Gather references both to use as source(s) of the information you will include and also to demonstrate notability of your article's subject matter." You completely fail to do this on the articles you bring to AFD because you expect us to do your work every single time. We're upset because you've deliberately done this almost a hundred times over the past year. Don't create an article unless you can prove that it passes WP:BASE/N or cite reliable sources for WP:GNG. Why is that such a daunting request? "I could. But I'm not going to." What was the point in creating Perry Lipe in July if you know that the subject was a non-notable minor leaguer? If you can't find the sources to back up claims of notability, please don't create the article! Your repeated dismissive attitude on this simple request shows that this will likely require administrative intervention. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 16:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't understand why people get so worked up over this. You guys tell me to take a break, but you're the ones getting so upset over it. Chillax. By the way, Taimo is a inherently notable as bullpen catchers are considered coaches. You lose. `Alex (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what? This has been going on for over a year now. You were asked to stop repeatedly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Novosel. We're requesting it again. Stop. I've had enough of this. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 14:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm tired of these AFDs as well. One AFD was an article he created in late July. Don't make the article if you don't think it's notable. Please stop creating this needless busy-work. Look at Jesús Tiamo, created recently. No reliable sources to establish notability at all. Don't bring this to AFD. It needs reliable sources, and **you** should find them, not us. "Not gonna happen." Well that's just swell. We're not going to do your job forever, especially with a dismissive attitude like that. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 14:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It wasn't meant to be condescending; it was meant as a good-faith suggestion. I'm astonished your little habit of creating pages and then running them through AfD hasn't drawn scrutiny from higher-ups. A first-day user of Wikipedia knows that the burden is on a page's creator to establish notability and to be able to defend an AfD rather than advocate for an AfD. For whatever reason, you seem to see AfD as your little sandbox, and it's both odd and contrary to Wiki policy. — NY-13021 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not gonna happen. I love the condescending tone so many Wikipedia users have. Alex (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I voted Keep because of the second sentence in Item #2 in Rlendog's comment above. That said, I bet you've AfD'd at least 20 pages in recent months that you originally created. I'd respectfully suggest that if you have such trouble understanding who and what passes or fails WP:GNG and/or WP:BASE/N, then maybe you should take a time out from creating pages and/or making AfD nominations. This habit of creating pages and then running them through AfD is both lame and counter to Wiki policy. — NY-13021 (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you saying keep because you don't like the fact that I nominated a guy that I created the article for? If so, that is not a valid reason to keep it and is borderline WP:POINTy. But the reason I often nominate guys I wrote articles for is because when I'm writing them, I think of them as article worthy...but often months on I review their articles (often by happenstance) and think "what was I thinking?" and AfD it. Alex (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Side mentions. Don't see anything RS. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's save a lot of time in the future Buck Elliott and Ray Malgradi. These two new example articles fail WP:BASEBALL/N, as do a lot of others he creates, and there is nothing presented through reliable sources or even an unsourced statement that asserts notability. These articles will inevitably be brought here within the month even though he just recently created them. Instead of bringing these to AFD, are there any criteria for speedy deletion to just get rid of them without discussion? He's against 'wikidrama' and wants us to make wikiarticles, and we can spend our time making the articles instead of spending hours arguing about his, so..? Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 20:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the thing and what really is the crux of all this. Why does it bother (any of) you so much? You aren't spending hours arguing over anything, at most you're spending five minutes creating a response. It doesn't involve a lot of time and a lot of energy, yet you're clearly letting this raise your blood pressure to unhealthy levels. I mean, just ignore them AfDs. Is that so hard? No one is asking you to inject your snark into each of them as you do. It's really quite saddening that Wikipedia means so much to you and that your life is perhaps so devoid of any other entertainment that you feel the need to overreact to minutiae such as this. Perhaps you should pick up a hobby. Start off slow, a life away from the computer screen takes getting used to. I hear cross-stitching is nice. Alex (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We'd all rather spend 0 minutes. That's what CSD and prods are for. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 13:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the thing and what really is the crux of all this. Why does it bother (any of) you so much? You aren't spending hours arguing over anything, at most you're spending five minutes creating a response. It doesn't involve a lot of time and a lot of energy, yet you're clearly letting this raise your blood pressure to unhealthy levels. I mean, just ignore them AfDs. Is that so hard? No one is asking you to inject your snark into each of them as you do. It's really quite saddening that Wikipedia means so much to you and that your life is perhaps so devoid of any other entertainment that you feel the need to overreact to minutiae such as this. Perhaps you should pick up a hobby. Start off slow, a life away from the computer screen takes getting used to. I hear cross-stitching is nice. Alex (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The clause "or a similar major professional sports league" within the above cited WP:NBASKETBALL seems intended for cases such as this; it is likely that this league was the most prominent at the time prior to the creation of the NBA, as the original ABL was the first attempt to create a professional basketball league. Kansan (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weakk keep - the ABL was a professional sports league at the time. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:47, 7 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.