Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Gallagher

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 per WP:SNOW. It's clear that WP:NSPORT is met. There are open discussions about the relation between that SNG and WP:GNG at WT:Notability and WT:Notability (sports). (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Gallagher

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

Delete: as non-notable athlete. Quis separabit? 22:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a straight-up WP:NBASE pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and a {{trout}} to the nominator, who should refresh themselves with the relevant notability standard before making further nominations of baseball players. Sorry, but given this, it has to be said, as (as mentioned) WP:NBASE is immediately verified as passed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as User:[email protected] did not familiarize him/herself with WP:ATHLETE before the nomination. WP:NBASE specifically includes anyone who appeared in MLB, and Gallagher played 9 MLB games in 1962. We presume there are offline sources for these subjects. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable MLB player. Nominator doesnt even attempt to explain why he considers him to not be notable. Spanneraol (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is the controlling standard, overrides notability guidelines for athletes, and is in no way met. It is very disruptive to the health of the project for sports enthusiasts to act like sportspeople should have some special protection, so much so that people should be repimanded for bringing such a sub-standard article to AfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He should be reprimanded for bringing the article to AFD with such a weak rationale. As to the standard of the article, I have already improved it greatly with just a few moments of research. I'm sure there is more out there if someone has the time to spend on it. Spanneraol (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why suddenly the consensus standard that a person who has participated in a regular-season major league sports competition is notable is "disruptive to the health of the project"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. It took maybe 30 seconds to find strong sourcing, and there's plenty more out there. That's why NC-BASE is a thing, to prevent stupid nominations like this when researching it and expanding the article takes no time at all. Wizardman 15:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sportsman and usually avoid athlete articles for that reason but, ummmm, the "article", created on 20 September 2010, when I made the AFD consisted of "was a pitcher who played in nine games for the Detroit Tigers in 1962. That does not constitute notability, under any circumstances. Any article so sloppily and idiotically created, and left in that condition for seven years deserves to be not only deleted but atomized into extinction. Quis separabit? 18:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even a good argument. See for example WP:TOOLITTLE. "Being "short" is not grounds for deletion." It would be preferable to tag it for expansion. Spanneraol (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and probably Speedy per all the above. I've noticed this nom before in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Kluge recklessly nominating articles for AfD with zero regard to WP:BEFORE not to mention our topic-specific notability guidelines like WP:NBASE or WP:NACTOR. This is really becoming a form of WP:DISRUPT. --Oakshade (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2018 (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.