Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Sublett
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 Delete per rough consensus and project guidelines (generally, if a project is large enough, and their guidelines are stricter than the general ones, there is no reason not to follow them). Fram (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Damon Sublett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- Delete. Minor league baseball player who is only at single-A and was only a 7th-round draft pick, i.e. no particular reason to believe he'll ever make the majors. Author's username is similar to this player's last name (possible WP:COI?). Prod removed with no explanation. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete appears to fail WP:BASEBALL ukexpat (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now. If he plays in the Major Leages, he'll meet notability requirements and an article about him can be recreated then. Deli nk (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clearly non-notable. I dunno what's with the sudden athlete inclusionism, it does nothing for us. Wizardman 00:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the following from User talk:PLSublett. Similar notes were posted to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Damon Sublett and Talk:Damon Sublett. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article meets all Wikipedia criteria for notability:
WP:ATHLETE:Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Any editors proposing deletion need to consult official Wikipedia guidelines on notability, rather than the user-created "guidelines" in Wikipedia:BASEBALL (which does not include Minor League Baseball players, and thus does not even apply to the subject of this article). Major League Baseball players are one subset of professional athletes, but Wikipedia guidelines explicitly allow articles on professional athletes who are not in that limited subset.
The subject of this article has played for two professional baseball teams, has won numerous awards in his field, and has been covered in multiple secondary sources, including published newspaper articles, magazine profiles, Web sites, blogs, and sports almanacs (as well as three published baseball cards within the past year), and certainly meets all criteria for articles on professional athletes. If anyone thinks that this article does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability, feel free to make your case here on this talk page.
Furthermore, several Wikipedia articles on professional sports leagues and teams have links to this article, and it would serve no purpose to delete this article and create red links on pages linking to it. The goal should be to turn all red links into full articles, and not the other way around. This article about a notable professional athlete, with footnotes to numerous secondary sources, was created to address a red link to this article from another page, whose author clearly (and correctly) believed this subject to be notable. PLSublett (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Because baseball's minor leagues are essentially a training program for Major League Baseball, they are generally not regarded to meet the "fully professional" criterion of WP:ATHLETE. Therefore, the baseball WikiProject developed Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Players to identify criteria that are relevant to the notability of minor league players, and Sublett doesn't meet these criteria. The article cites one reliable source that provides non-trivial coverage (an article from SNY.TV). (It also cites a blog—blogs generally aren't regarded as reliable sources—a stats site, and an alumni magnazine article that I wasn't able to find.) Thus, I also didn't see enough substantial coverage from reliable sources to argue for keeping the article. BRMo (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wikipedia itself defines "professional" as "sportsmen or sportswomen who derive income by participating in competitive sports." This certainly applies to all Minor League Baseball players, who are indeed fully professional, as per Wikipedia and any dictionary definition. (This is not my opinion; it is the official Wikipedia definition.) So this article passes official Wikipedia criteria for notability (which some of you may need to read again for yourselves -- don't take my word for it.)
3. BRMo and others cite WikiProject Baseball as reason to delete any articles on Minor League Baseball players, but did any of you actually read that page? Right at the top it says, "This section is a WikiProject essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it during XfD's." So the very essay you cite as evidence for deletion itself says it is "not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it."
4. The general tone of arguments for deletion here seems to be "Minor League Baseball players are not real athletes, so no Wikipedia users should have to endure the burden of reading about them." Well, you are all entitled to your opinions and personal disdain for Minor League players, but those opinions are not evidence or reason to delete an encyclopedic article containing verifiable facts about a notable, fully professional athlete. All of the above facts, links to official Wikipedia guidelines and dictionary definitions, and the additional verifiable material and footnotes added to the article itself, should more than address any factual concerns raised here.
(As for people's opinions ... well, how do you argue with someone who says "In my opinion, blue is not a color," or, "In my opinion, people who get paid to play competitive baseball are not professional athletes"?) I think any admin familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines will know the difference between factual arguments and opinions, and will agree that all of the facts cited and linked above line up under the "keep" side of this debate.
5. But since everyone seems to offer their personal opinions as arguments, here's one to consider: "Any person included in a set of nationally sold trading cards is de facto a notable person." (The subject of this article has had his own baseball card in three different trading card sets published by three different companies within the past year. Again, check out eBay or the links provided at the bottom of the article -- don't take my word for it.) Also, memorabilia autographed by this professional athlete is being sold on eBay right now. Not only is he notable by Wikipedia standards, but he's also notable enough on eBay for people to pay money for his trading cards and autographs.
I have yet to read one factual argument here (as opposed to unenforceable essays or personal opinions) that he is not notable. (Those of you who have raised factual concerns about this article and its sources, I hope you will read the full article again and all of the new footnote links. If you have any specific concerns about a fact mentioned in the article, feel free to raise it here, or add your own footnotes to the article.) Those of you still tempted to cite WikiProject Baseball in this discussion, see point No. 3 above. "It is not a policy or guideline." PLSublett (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can source it and write it as well as you want, unfortunately he's still not notable. Wizardman 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wizardman, re-read my numbered points above, especially those regarding the difference between your opinion of what is "notable" and the official Wikipedia criteria of notability. Your arguments are like me saying, "I don't think Russia is a notable country, so the Wikipedia page on Russia should be deleted." Again, you are stating your opinion of a word's definition, but I have repetedly linked to the actual Wikipedia definition of notability. Read it again for yourself. PLSublett (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep as his college success matches the standard set in the recent Brad Chalk AFD debate. I wouldn't put much credit in his baseball cards but being a semi-finalist for the Dick Howser Trophy and his other college honors may bring him to the cusp of notability established in the prior afd. Spanneraol (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Strike-through textChange to Delete per arguments below. Spanneraol (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per the Brad Chalk arguments. This seems to be a very similar player with similar pre-professional honors awarded. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, how did I miss the Brad Chalk AFD? What a terrible precedent! Stay tuned for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Chalk 2, coming soon... —Wknight94 (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Also noting the above two arguments are basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wizardman 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really.. the points above are not because that article exists this one should.. but are more along the lines of ... the arguments at that other afd set a precedent that can be applied to this one. Spanneraol (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're arguing on the basis of precedent (which I acknowledge is generally not the best argument in AfD discussions), it should also be noted that many articles for minor league players with credentials similar to Sublett's have been deleted—for example, see AfD's for Kasey Kiker, Matt Rizzotti, and Kevin Russo (among others). BRMo (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Precedents are not really relevant to this discussion -- this article meets the criteria for notability on its face. There seems to be a semantic argument here over the meaning of "notable," "professional," and "athlete," all of which are defined by Wikipedia in links I have posted above. A lot of folks seem to have the opinion that "All of Minor League Baseball is not notable, therefore all articles about its players should be deleted." These people are so entrenched in that opinion, that they have not even bothered to read the actual Wikipedia criteria for notability, since it conflicts with their opinion. In fact, Wikipedia guidelines on notability, if you read them, would apply to all Minor League Baseball players who have been interviewed or profiled in a reliable secondary source. Perhaps instead of expending energy trying to delete every article that does not fall under Major League Baseball, a group of fans should start a Minor League Baseball WikiProject to organize these articles on notable professional athletes. There's no reason Wikipedia can't have articles on both Major and Minor League players (and even if you disagree, you don't have to read the articles on the notable professional athletes in the leagues that you don't follow). PLSublett (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I agree with you that precedents aren't really relevant. We're all familiar with WP:ATHLETE's criterion of "fully professional league" and are aware that minor league baseball players are "professional," in the sense that they are paid. However, many of us see a difference between playing for a team for which the primary goal is to win a pennant or championship and a team for which the primary goal is to train and develop the players for a parent team (i.e., the modern minor leagues). Thus, many editors, including myself, don't think that the "fully professional league" criterion is applicable to modern minor league baseball. That doesn't mean I disrespect the minor leagues, I just don't think Wikipedia can reasonably support articles for all of the roughly 150-200,000 men who've played minor league baseball (see WP:NOT and WP:BLP). The baseball WikiProject has developed specific criteria for minor league players. It's true that these aren't "policies" or "guidelines" (which reflect the consensus of the entire Wikipedia community) and editors aren't required to follow them in AfD discussions (just as we're not literally required to follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines), but they do reflect the consensus of editors who focus on baseball articles. And consensus is how Wikipedia operates. BRMo (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the old slippery slope argument: If you let me publish one article about a notable, professional Minor League Baseball player, then you will have to immediately edit 199,999 other Minor League Baseball articles the next day. I agree, that would be a huge burden for you and your fellow Major League Baseball editors, which would detract from your other important baseball editing duties ... that is, if the slippery slope argument had any validity in this case, which I don't think it does. (It reminds me of the arguments that non-gay people make against allowing gay people to get married: "Let one gay couple get married today, and tomorrow you'll have to allow people to marry farm animals.") I don't see it as a slippery slope -- we can just add one article at a time, check that it meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability and reliable secondary sources, and move on to the next one. There's no requirement that all 200,000 people who have ever been involved in Minor League Baseball must have their own article (like any other Wikipedia article, each should be individually checked for notability and reliability of sources); conversely, there's no reason that one Minor League Baseball player should not have an article. It's not a precedent. It's not throwing open the floodgates. It's just one article about one person. Judge it on its own merit and content, not what its existence would "cause" in the future. PLSublett (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've judged it on its own merit and it's not notable. BRMo (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the old slippery slope argument: If you let me publish one article about a notable, professional Minor League Baseball player, then you will have to immediately edit 199,999 other Minor League Baseball articles the next day. I agree, that would be a huge burden for you and your fellow Major League Baseball editors, which would detract from your other important baseball editing duties ... that is, if the slippery slope argument had any validity in this case, which I don't think it does. (It reminds me of the arguments that non-gay people make against allowing gay people to get married: "Let one gay couple get married today, and tomorrow you'll have to allow people to marry farm animals.") I don't see it as a slippery slope -- we can just add one article at a time, check that it meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability and reliable secondary sources, and move on to the next one. There's no requirement that all 200,000 people who have ever been involved in Minor League Baseball must have their own article (like any other Wikipedia article, each should be individually checked for notability and reliability of sources); conversely, there's no reason that one Minor League Baseball player should not have an article. It's not a precedent. It's not throwing open the floodgates. It's just one article about one person. Judge it on its own merit and content, not what its existence would "cause" in the future. PLSublett (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I agree with you that precedents aren't really relevant. We're all familiar with WP:ATHLETE's criterion of "fully professional league" and are aware that minor league baseball players are "professional," in the sense that they are paid. However, many of us see a difference between playing for a team for which the primary goal is to win a pennant or championship and a team for which the primary goal is to train and develop the players for a parent team (i.e., the modern minor leagues). Thus, many editors, including myself, don't think that the "fully professional league" criterion is applicable to modern minor league baseball. That doesn't mean I disrespect the minor leagues, I just don't think Wikipedia can reasonably support articles for all of the roughly 150-200,000 men who've played minor league baseball (see WP:NOT and WP:BLP). The baseball WikiProject has developed specific criteria for minor league players. It's true that these aren't "policies" or "guidelines" (which reflect the consensus of the entire Wikipedia community) and editors aren't required to follow them in AfD discussions (just as we're not literally required to follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines), but they do reflect the consensus of editors who focus on baseball articles. And consensus is how Wikipedia operates. BRMo (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Precedents are not really relevant to this discussion -- this article meets the criteria for notability on its face. There seems to be a semantic argument here over the meaning of "notable," "professional," and "athlete," all of which are defined by Wikipedia in links I have posted above. A lot of folks seem to have the opinion that "All of Minor League Baseball is not notable, therefore all articles about its players should be deleted." These people are so entrenched in that opinion, that they have not even bothered to read the actual Wikipedia criteria for notability, since it conflicts with their opinion. In fact, Wikipedia guidelines on notability, if you read them, would apply to all Minor League Baseball players who have been interviewed or profiled in a reliable secondary source. Perhaps instead of expending energy trying to delete every article that does not fall under Major League Baseball, a group of fans should start a Minor League Baseball WikiProject to organize these articles on notable professional athletes. There's no reason Wikipedia can't have articles on both Major and Minor League players (and even if you disagree, you don't have to read the articles on the notable professional athletes in the leagues that you don't follow). PLSublett (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're arguing on the basis of precedent (which I acknowledge is generally not the best argument in AfD discussions), it should also be noted that many articles for minor league players with credentials similar to Sublett's have been deleted—for example, see AfD's for Kasey Kiker, Matt Rizzotti, and Kevin Russo (among others). BRMo (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really.. the points above are not because that article exists this one should.. but are more along the lines of ... the arguments at that other afd set a precedent that can be applied to this one. Spanneraol (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - you can ask most anyone here, as I participate in the majority of sports related deletions and I'm almost always a keep vote. But as inclusive as I am, minor league baseball players don't need articles. Minor leagues don't generally stand on their own as professional organizations, and are derived based off of MLB. I believe professional players in other countries should have articles, for sure, but the minor leagues, no. There is just no reason to have it unless there's really a reason for it, like Ila Borders. She was a minor league player who was notable enough for an article. matt91486 (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When Matt91486 says, "minor league baseball players don't need articles," I agree 100 percent. I never said they "need" articles. But that's entirely different from saying, "all Minor League player articles must be deleted immediately, regardless of their content." I'm sure no one in this discussion has a personal grudge against the subject of this article (e.g., "Delete, because he ran over my cat"), but I'm pretty sure everyone who is pressing for immediate deletion of the article (without even trying to edit or improve it) is doing so based solely on the presence of the words "Minor League Baseball" in the first sentence of the article. The old slippery slope argument ("If we allow this Minor League Baseball article today, then we'll have to allow all Little League players to have their own articles tomorrow") seems to be popular, as are the "I don't care about Minor League players," "He's just not notable," and the "all-or-nothing" arguments. Feel free to continue citing these reasons for deletion, but first try to look at it from a neutral Wikipedia user's point of view, rather than a Major League Baseball editor's point of view: The subject of the article gets paid to play in a competitive sports league (which is a fact, whether or not you, personally, consider that sports league to be interesting or important). This, by definition, makes him a professional athlete, which by definition makes him notable. Wizardman's popular "Just Not Notable" argument does not cite any examples, offer any suggestions for improvement, or explain the urgency for deletion of this article. Some good reasons for immediate deletion would be "the article contains false information," "the facts in the article can't be verified in reliable secondary sources," "the article is libelous or is written in a biased manner," or "the article is poorly written, and no amount of editing can ever fix it." Also, if you argued "Wikipedia servers have run out of space, and we either have to delete the Babe Ruth article, or an article on some Minor League player," then I would agree the Minor League articles should go. But until that day comes, there's no reason that both can't coexist. The existence of this article does not clutter up any lists, it doesn't lead to confusion of Wikipedia readers, and in fact, the only people who will ever see this article are those who specifically are searching for it. And until someone can prove that this article violates even one Wikipedia policy, I will continue to dispute these "all-or-nothing" arguments that are based solely on the fact that he's a Minor League Baseball player. Finally, when Matt91486 says, "There is just no reason to have it unless there's really a reason for it," that's not an argument to delete a factual, verifiable, encyclopedic article that someone else has written about a notable professional athlete. What he's really saying is that "There is just no reason that I, Matt91486, would want to read about a Minor League Baseball player, because I am a fan of Major League Baseball, which has better, more experienced players." I understand that sentiment, which seems to be shared by just about every other Major League Baseball fan here, but as I have said, the "I don't care about Minor League players" assertion is fine as a personal preference, but to delete an article, you should cite some official Wikipedia rules or policies that the article has violated, and explain why no amount of editing would help the article conform to the rule it has violated. (I personally don't care about basket weaving, so I choose not to read any articles on that subject. I wouldn't go around trying to delete articles others have written on the subject, unless they are blatantly violating a Wikipedia rule or they contain libelous content, or their sources can't be verified. If an article does not violate any Wikipedia rules, then we should just assume that someone, somewhere, does care about basket weaving, or Minor League Baseball, and might find the information useful.) Nobody reads an encyclopedia cover-to-cover, and nobody has to be interested in the subject of every Wikipedia article. I understand that Major League Baseball players are generally better and get paid more than Minor League players; but what does that have to do with deleting an article? PLSublett (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about a slippery slope. It's about having to have a general objective criteria. Major professional leagues meet that criteria. Developmental leagues do not, unless there are extenuating circumstances to give a player legitimate WP:BIO notability. This player doesn't have it. matt91486 (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I am inclined to think it's possible there may be a slight conflict of interest given your username and the name of the player. I could be completely wrong, of course (I've written articles about people with last names that I haven't been related to), but your editing history is very much skewed to this. So when I'm voting delete for it, I don't mean anything personal about it, but I just don't believe he objectively meets the criteria of notability. He certainly has plenty of time to get there, though. matt91486 (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, if only Wikipedia had some objective criteria to determine the notability of a person, then we could avoid this "yes-he-is," "no-he-isn't" debate, which seems to be going in circles. Oh, wait, they do have objective criteria: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Athletes, which defines notable athletes as "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." And to clarify any confusion arising from that sentence, Wikipedia helpfully defines professional as "sportsmen or sportswomen who derive income by participating in competitive sports." (Being professional means you get paid to do something, rather than doing something for fun. It has nothing to do with how much a person gets paid.) Also, at the top of Wikipedia's guidelines for determining notability, it says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." In the article, I have included numerous footnotes and external links to secondary sources, including magazines, newspapers, Web sites, etc., where the subject was profiled or interviewed. No one can dispute that he is an athlete, he gets paid, and he has been covered in numerous secondary sources. By all objective criteria on Wikipedia, he is notable (not because I say he is; Wikipedia says he is). In addition, he has been featured in baseball card sets published by three different companies in the past year. His autographed memorabilia is sold in eBay auctions at this very moment. Why would three companies publish and sell autographed memorabilia of a non-notable person? (Let me answer that for you: They wouldn't.) PLSublett (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And since a couple people have brought it up, yes, my username is similar to Damon Sublett's last name. That's how I heard about him, and why I took the time to track down multiple secondary sources about him before even starting this Wikipedia article. (If my username were "RedSoxFanNo.1" then I expect I would spend my free time researching some other players.) I have never met or spoken to Damon Sublett, and the similarity of our names just proves that his great-great-great-grandfather was a distant cousin of my great-great-great-grandfather. All the information in the article comes from reliable secondary sources that I have found just searching the Internet. (If you feel anything in the article shows bias or a conflict of interest, then feel free to edit it.) I have never claimed someone is notable just because their name is similar to mine (that would be as stupid an argument as saying they are not notable solely because they are a professional Minor League Baseball player). I have repeatedly proven notability citing Wikipedia policies and definitions and secondary sources, as well as the fact that the subject can be considered notable by the mere fact that he has appeared in multiple nationally distributed baseball card sets, and that people around the country are paying money for his autograph. Yes, the professional athletes in Minor League Baseball -- as well as Major League Baseball (and any other profession, for that matter) -- have the goal of improving their skills and being promoted to a better team with a better salary. But that doesn't mean they're not professional athletes. Fans pay for tickets to see Minor League Baseball games. PLSublett (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, if only Wikipedia had some objective criteria to determine the notability of a person, then we could avoid this "yes-he-is," "no-he-isn't" debate, which seems to be going in circles. Oh, wait, they do have objective criteria: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Athletes, which defines notable athletes as "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." And to clarify any confusion arising from that sentence, Wikipedia helpfully defines professional as "sportsmen or sportswomen who derive income by participating in competitive sports." (Being professional means you get paid to do something, rather than doing something for fun. It has nothing to do with how much a person gets paid.) Also, at the top of Wikipedia's guidelines for determining notability, it says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." In the article, I have included numerous footnotes and external links to secondary sources, including magazines, newspapers, Web sites, etc., where the subject was profiled or interviewed. No one can dispute that he is an athlete, he gets paid, and he has been covered in numerous secondary sources. By all objective criteria on Wikipedia, he is notable (not because I say he is; Wikipedia says he is). In addition, he has been featured in baseball card sets published by three different companies in the past year. His autographed memorabilia is sold in eBay auctions at this very moment. Why would three companies publish and sell autographed memorabilia of a non-notable person? (Let me answer that for you: They wouldn't.) PLSublett (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I am inclined to think it's possible there may be a slight conflict of interest given your username and the name of the player. I could be completely wrong, of course (I've written articles about people with last names that I haven't been related to), but your editing history is very much skewed to this. So when I'm voting delete for it, I don't mean anything personal about it, but I just don't believe he objectively meets the criteria of notability. He certainly has plenty of time to get there, though. matt91486 (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about a slippery slope. It's about having to have a general objective criteria. Major professional leagues meet that criteria. Developmental leagues do not, unless there are extenuating circumstances to give a player legitimate WP:BIO notability. This player doesn't have it. matt91486 (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it curious that Major League Baseball editors keep gravitating to this discussion, claiming jurisdiction over all articles about Minor League Baseball players, but then contend that all Minor League Baseball articles must be immediately deleted because they fall outside the jurisdiction of the Major League Baseball WikiProject. What kind of logic is that? If you have no interest in Minor League Baseball, then let some group of interested editors make up a WikiProject on that topic, and you can wash your hands of it. It's OK to define parameters in your own WikiProject to decide what you will and won't edit. You think Major League Baseball players are better (and get paid more) than Minor League Baseball players, so you have more interest in reading and editing articles about Major League Baseball players. Therefore, you choose to exclude all Minor League Baseball players from your WikiProject criteria. However, Julia Roberts is not a Major League Baseball player, yet she is still a notable professional. It would be silly to argue for her page's deletion, based solely on the fact that she's never played Major League Baseball. In fact, it would be silly to make that argument for deleting any Wikipedia article for which the notability and sources are clearly established. Like Julia Roberts, Damon Sublett has never played Major League Baseball, yet he is a professional in his field, he has received numerous awards and recognition for his achievements, and he has been covered in independent, verifiable secondary sources. That meets all Wikipedia criteria for notability. "Not being a Major League Baseball player" is not a reason to declare a person non-notable or non-professional, or to delete an encyclopedic page about that person. I will agree, though, that simply "being a Minor League Baseball player" is not sufficient reason on its own to establish notability. (A Wikipedia page that just stated "So-and-so is a Minor League Baseball player" would not be encyclopedic, informative, or backed up by secondary sources, and would definitely be a candidate for deletion if no sources could be added and no amount of editing would improve it.) That is why each article on Wikipedia -- whether it's about professional baseball players, actors, or basket weaving -- should be read and edited on its own to ensure it complies with objective Wikipedia standards of notability and sourcing. This article does comply with Wikipedia standards, so therefore there is no compelling reason to delete it. If it is found to contain factual errors or biased material, the remedy to that is to edit the article, not to delete it entirely. PLSublett (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When Matt91486 says, "minor league baseball players don't need articles," I agree 100 percent. I never said they "need" articles. But that's entirely different from saying, "all Minor League player articles must be deleted immediately, regardless of their content." I'm sure no one in this discussion has a personal grudge against the subject of this article (e.g., "Delete, because he ran over my cat"), but I'm pretty sure everyone who is pressing for immediate deletion of the article (without even trying to edit or improve it) is doing so based solely on the presence of the words "Minor League Baseball" in the first sentence of the article. The old slippery slope argument ("If we allow this Minor League Baseball article today, then we'll have to allow all Little League players to have their own articles tomorrow") seems to be popular, as are the "I don't care about Minor League players," "He's just not notable," and the "all-or-nothing" arguments. Feel free to continue citing these reasons for deletion, but first try to look at it from a neutral Wikipedia user's point of view, rather than a Major League Baseball editor's point of view: The subject of the article gets paid to play in a competitive sports league (which is a fact, whether or not you, personally, consider that sports league to be interesting or important). This, by definition, makes him a professional athlete, which by definition makes him notable. Wizardman's popular "Just Not Notable" argument does not cite any examples, offer any suggestions for improvement, or explain the urgency for deletion of this article. Some good reasons for immediate deletion would be "the article contains false information," "the facts in the article can't be verified in reliable secondary sources," "the article is libelous or is written in a biased manner," or "the article is poorly written, and no amount of editing can ever fix it." Also, if you argued "Wikipedia servers have run out of space, and we either have to delete the Babe Ruth article, or an article on some Minor League player," then I would agree the Minor League articles should go. But until that day comes, there's no reason that both can't coexist. The existence of this article does not clutter up any lists, it doesn't lead to confusion of Wikipedia readers, and in fact, the only people who will ever see this article are those who specifically are searching for it. And until someone can prove that this article violates even one Wikipedia policy, I will continue to dispute these "all-or-nothing" arguments that are based solely on the fact that he's a Minor League Baseball player. Finally, when Matt91486 says, "There is just no reason to have it unless there's really a reason for it," that's not an argument to delete a factual, verifiable, encyclopedic article that someone else has written about a notable professional athlete. What he's really saying is that "There is just no reason that I, Matt91486, would want to read about a Minor League Baseball player, because I am a fan of Major League Baseball, which has better, more experienced players." I understand that sentiment, which seems to be shared by just about every other Major League Baseball fan here, but as I have said, the "I don't care about Minor League players" assertion is fine as a personal preference, but to delete an article, you should cite some official Wikipedia rules or policies that the article has violated, and explain why no amount of editing would help the article conform to the rule it has violated. (I personally don't care about basket weaving, so I choose not to read any articles on that subject. I wouldn't go around trying to delete articles others have written on the subject, unless they are blatantly violating a Wikipedia rule or they contain libelous content, or their sources can't be verified. If an article does not violate any Wikipedia rules, then we should just assume that someone, somewhere, does care about basket weaving, or Minor League Baseball, and might find the information useful.) Nobody reads an encyclopedia cover-to-cover, and nobody has to be interested in the subject of every Wikipedia article. I understand that Major League Baseball players are generally better and get paid more than Minor League players; but what does that have to do with deleting an article? PLSublett (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on arguemnts above, that minor league playing doesn't confer notability by itself.Yobmod (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2008 (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.