Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boland (baseball)

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. User:Kinston eagle is reminded to separately nominate articles of this nature in the future, as mass nominations like this prevent the process from working as intended. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boland (baseball)[edit]

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

This article does not pass WP:GNG. A very similar article to Smith (baseball) which was recently deleted due to this discussion Kinston eagle (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are very similar in subject and content:

~~Delete~~ – ~~Agreed with nominator.~~ United States Man (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I commented before the other nominations, I want to clarify that I !vote to delete all. United States Man (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my stance to a redirect for all except Lewis (baseball). United States Man (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but did you perform source searches about each of these subjects to qualify the deletion of each respective article? Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Procedural keep as it is difficult to evaluate these people individually when they are bundled like this. Some of them may have more coverage than others. Spanneraol (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and renominate separately after performing WP:BEFORE source searches to better-qualify deletion. No offense, but it's unlikely that preliminary source searches occurred in the time the first nomination was posted and the following additional ones were. Therefore, also keep per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a good faith source search for each and found nothing except the minimal stats these players had. As a general rule of thumb: if even baseball historians cant find a given name its SUPER unlikely there is coverage. Beerest 2 talk 22:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source searches have been ongoing for over 120 years. The good people at SABR have intensified this research over the past forty years with specific committees tasked with finding biographical info on these players. The fact that none of these experienced researchers have even found their first names in all that time, would seem to indicate that no significant coverage exists for these particular people. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Major League Baseball experience gives automatic WP:N--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball) Secret ^account 15:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and recent AFD consensus that showed that those players aren't notable and fails WP:V Secret ^account 15:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all subject to possible merge into a collective article about such players, as was discussed and widely supported at the "Smith" AfD. The players here may have enough information to support individual bio articles, but the information itself is encyclopedic and should not be lost. Simple deletion greatly inhibits editors' ability to create such an article and is the wrong way to go. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Deletion of any sets an unhealthy precedent. Alex (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What unhealthy precedent if the deletion only covers those nameless guys? Secret ^account 19:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well we must have already set a unhealthy precedent with the close of Smith (baseball). Beerest 2 talk 22:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and then redirect to List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names (which still must be expanded). Per the closure of Smith (baseball)'s AFD. I am on Wikibreak right now but I saw this, and as the Smith AFD nominator I feel I have to comment. These all fail GNG, and we cant really know for sure if these even are players, as commenters sayed in the other nomination pseudonyms were very frequent in early days of baseball. Beerest 2 talk 22:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If redirecting all of these is the correct result, I am not sure why you feel it is necessary to delete the articles first. Why not just redirect via editing the existing article, leaving the information in the article history as a possible starting point for a standalone article if reliable sources are found for any of these? Rlendog (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with all of these articles being redirected to List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. I was pushing for this at the Smith afd but it seemed like people were focused on all or nothing. Kinston eagle (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep or merge into collective article per Arxiloxos. I supported the deletion of "Smith" and suspect that most of these "last-name-only" entries should be deleted. However, like others have said above, I do not favor a mass deletion without considering individual merits or merging into collective article. Cbl62 (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also a substantive keep as to Lewis which demonstrates why en masse treatment doesn't work. Cbl62 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all minus Lewis (baseball), who has had some coverage in books and newspapers. Seattle (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all mass noms for deletion are often a mess, and this one is certainly a mess. Please list these couple of dozens people separately so that they can be evaluated individually. Cavarrone 08:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. There are some, surprisingly enough, that do technically pass GNG, such as Lewis, so a bulk nom doesn't work. Wizardman 16:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I agree with Wizardman above, I think with a little more digging, some others can pass GNG. These need to be discussed individually.Neonblak ^talk - 16:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lewis, per the sources already included. Just because there is no given name doesn't inherently mean there are no reliable sources using the last name. And in Lewis' case there clearly are some. Procedural keep of the rest - I don't necessarily have a problem with redirecting them to the list article until more sources are found, but that should be done via editing without requiring the use of tools. Rlendog (talk) 17:42, 13 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.