Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Blevins

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. My sympathy actually lies with the "delete" !votes here. Unfortunately, WP has to reflect society and doesn't pursue an activist agenda. And the way things are, any run-of-the-mill minor athlete (I am not necessarily referring to Blevins here, but to all the hundreds of minor league athletes mentioned in the AfD) will get coverage in reliable sources, whereas, say, most scientists don't, even though the latter do influence (and improve) our lives immensely more. Available sources establish notability, although they are decidedly local and it would be nice if some better coverage could be found. Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Blevins

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

Non notable minor league player... most recently played in the independent Atlantic League. Spanneraol (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the coverage in the article, I found this:[1][2][3][4][5] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Um, good luck Spanneraol, if you feel that way, you're going to be crusading against hundreds of minor-leaguers who have articles.--ɱ (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. The links above don't come close to passing GNG. They're typical "local boy" articles written every day in U.S. newspapers. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSLOCAL isn't a valid reason to delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Easily passes GNG, there is a large quantity of reliable, independent secondary sources in the article and in the comment made by User:Muboshgu. Not to mention the existence of hundreds of articles of hundreds of athletes less notable than Blevins. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. And those articles to me are fairly routine. Spanneraol (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but in this case the "other stuff" is all minor league athletes, either way there are more than enough sources to justify this article's passing of GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet another AfD where the nominator does absolutely no research on the subject and assumes just because he never reached the major leagues he can't possibly pass GNG. Alex (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this early as a Keep but 2 editors have disagreed so reopened to keep everyone happy. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed as going off topic - Made a silly edit summary and have apologized for it so me thinks it's time to just move on, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. And it was nice of you to be so gracious about it (note the "Fuck off" in the edit summary). - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said you both spoke to me like ~~shite~~ crap and ~~I sure as hell don't tolerate it,~~ Anyway I've apologized [6]. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to stay civil here; I really don't like such vulgarity or hostility. If you believe that the article truly fails notability criteria or another rule, just state it well enough to close this discussion. Otherwise, please just stop right here and let the article stay.--ɱ (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't like people who come to my page ranting and raving instead of respectfully and politely asking one simple thing, and saying "just stop right here and let the article stay" is pointless since A. I've apologized and B. I don't plan on closing it. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a request, and that's no justification.--ɱ (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erm yes it is - Respect and civility works both ways on here, Also you might want to WP:DROPTHESTICK as this is rather pointless ? .... I told someone to fuck off, I then apologized ... so that really should be the end of it (I'm not saying Sorry makes everything okay but one can't really do much more than apologize). –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete To me, Blevins really doesn't seem like a notable person. He does have a fair amount of coverage, but as noted above, it is 'local boy' coverage. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the coverage that Muboshgu found isn't.--ɱ (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Muboshgu listed were all basically the same article about him trying to hang on and keep the dream alive in the independent leagues... thousands of those articles get written all the time. Spanneraol (talk)

I've never seen a requirement that for notability to be established, the articles have to be very diverse and interesting. As long as Blevins is covered by multiple independent reliable sources, the article falls within Wikipedia's notability. It doesn't matter what any editor or baseball fan thinks of what the sources are actually reporting about or anything else, really. The coverage is there.--ɱ (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This ^^. The selective use of GNG is telling. Alex (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, tens of thousands of high school athletes would be eligible for Wikipedia pages based on "local boy" and "local girl" stories. A few local stories about a local subject doesn't seem to constitute "significant coverage." - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it reaches a certain threshold. Locality of coverage applies to many pages on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with others. Other than the Newsday all of the sources are all localish/routine type coverage that i'd say about 75% current minor leaguers get (if you dig really deep). If he wasn't so run of the mill i'd probably vote keep, but otherwise i'm going delete here.--Yankees10 07:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really not the case. Most minor leaguers don't get written up at all, let alone multiple times over multiple years. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it takes 4 or so good solid articles about a player to pass GNG. If you truly dig really deep you can find them. I mean really deep. Not so much for foreign players, but if you are an American kid drafted, you are more than likely going to have numerous localish type coverage articles written about you over the years. That's why I go case by case with these AFD's or when creating an article. And to me this guy is run of the mill with no reason of having an article.--Yankees10 17:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion; I'll stick with Wikipedia's notability criteria, which has no such rule and allows for this article's maintenance.--ɱ (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no set rule on how many it takes. For some reason I still don't understand, a particular bullpen catcher got kept with one source. It is hard to find coverage for foreign players, but many American born players get just a line in a "X region players drafted" article, which we can all agree doesn't contribute to GNG. It is rare for one player to be the sole focus of an article, which is why when you string enough of them together, it makes a notable subject, like Blevins. I don't disagree that he's unspectacular as far as baseball bios go, but he seems to pass the threshold of significant coverage in multiple sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Between the article and Muboshgu's sources there are plenty of articles about this subject to easily pass GNG. Rlendog (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources that establish notability. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 06:50, 25 November 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.