Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Mealey (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 July 28. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. causa sui (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Mealey[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Jack Mealey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Potentially non-notable minor league baseball figure. Though he worked in the minors for quite a while, I don't think he really did all that much that was terribly notable. Alex (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per the keeps the last time you nominated this fellow, which AfD resulted in a keep -- notability is not fleeting.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Consensus can change. "Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding" and "editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed." —Bagumba (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change because circumstances can change, or guidelines can change. But here we have neither, nor any suggestion of either. Nor was this a close close -- it was a unanimous keep, with the closer agreeing with both commentators. That notability is not fleeting is embedded in the very notability guideline -- see WP:N#TEMP. Repeated nominations of Keeps without reasonable rationale can be POINTy, and disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Consensus can change. "Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding" and "editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed." —Bagumba (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per stint as league president and managerial career and minor league all-star appearances. Spanneraol (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that Mealey was president of the Sooner State League outside of what the Baseball Reference Bullpen says, and another Wiki cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia. As manager, he never even led his team to any championships. Alex (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found a source for being president and added to the article, though its only a one-line mention and doesnt help WP:GNG. I agree that Baseball Reference Bullpen, another wiki site that anyone can edit (and so sources are even cited there) is not reliable and have tagged the article as such. —Bagumba (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Sporting News archives at PaperofRecord.com, a subscription service, proves that he was in fact the head of the Sooner State League. "A 140-game schedule, opening April 29 and closing September 1, was adopted by the new Sooner State League, headed by Jack Mealey, former catcher and manager." January 22, 1947. If there's further doubt of him being the actual president, he is specifically referred to as "president of the Sooner State League" in the February 18, 1948 Sporting News. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 19:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please cite a guideline or policy whereby "league president and managerial career and minor league all-star appearances" implies notability. —Bagumba (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that Mealey was president of the Sooner State League outside of what the Baseball Reference Bullpen says, and another Wiki cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia. As manager, he never even led his team to any championships. Alex (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per Spanneraol. Plus, in my opinion, playing the PCL in that era was as notable as playing today in any non-North American major league. Rlendog (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Being a minor league player, manager and executive isn't enough to satisfy WP:BASE/N and I don't see evidence of him meeting WP:GNG. I disagree with the contention that the PCL in those days was equal to the AL or NL. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player with no notable accomplishments. Fails WP:BASEBALL/N by never playing or managing in Major League Baseball. Fails WP:GNG by not having significant coverage in multiple independent sources. The coverage on him is WP:ROUTINE consisting of a few lines of pre- or post-game coverage that discuss him specifically. I note that the previous AfD only had two participants, neither of which cited any specific WP policies or guidelines and amounted to a !vote of I like it. Still the moderator incorrectly attributed this as a keep, "All star appearances plus being league president satisfy WP:N from what I can see," even though WP:N was not demonstrated by the minor league achievements. Finally, I note that the nominator of the AfD is also the article's creater and main contributor, which further reinforces my inclination to delete. —Bagumba (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh, that's right. I forgot I even wrote that article. Alex (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some is routine. As is always the case, with baseball players. But it may perhaps be less than fair to describe all of the coverage as such. See, as just one such example, "Jack Mealey Given Boost as Backstop", The Pittsburgh Press, February 1, 1931.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I never wrote that all the coverage was routine, but apologies if that was your impression. This source was bordenline trivial IMO. If we can find at least two more sources of significant coverage, that would satisfy GNG's requirement for multiple sources. The problem I had in finding these was that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." —Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As this is an AfD discussion, it would not matter a bit for the purposes of this discussion if only some of the coverage were routine, as I now understand you meant to convey. It is only a reason for deletion if all of the coverage is routine, and the ballplayer otherwise fails to meet N requirements. Every single baseball player we have at wp has a large dose of routine coverage--that's not a material point, IMHO, at an AfD discussion. As far as your calling the above source "borderline trivial", I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion -- the article focuses on the subject of this AfD in its very title, as well as in a good number of paragraphs, discussing a number of aspects of him as a baseball player. The RS has clearly "noticed" him in a non-trivial way; trivial would be a passing mention; i.e., "Player x homered to right". This is nothing of the sort.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rhetoric aside, please identify for this AfD two specific additional sources that demonstrate the "significant coverage" that WP:GNG requires. —Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you see a requirement for three sources? Did you make that up? And don't you agree that the source I pointed to is so robust as to be the furthest thing from "borderline trivial", with multiple paragraphs discussing the ballplayer, what he is good at, what he is not good at, his past accomplishments, etc? And don't you agree that the strong consensus at this AfD, to this point, is that he is notable and this should be a keep, based on the references both in the article and those that are not in the article?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rhetoric aside, please identify for this AfD two specific additional sources that demonstrate the "significant coverage" that WP:GNG requires. —Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As this is an AfD discussion, it would not matter a bit for the purposes of this discussion if only some of the coverage were routine, as I now understand you meant to convey. It is only a reason for deletion if all of the coverage is routine, and the ballplayer otherwise fails to meet N requirements. Every single baseball player we have at wp has a large dose of routine coverage--that's not a material point, IMHO, at an AfD discussion. As far as your calling the above source "borderline trivial", I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion -- the article focuses on the subject of this AfD in its very title, as well as in a good number of paragraphs, discussing a number of aspects of him as a baseball player. The RS has clearly "noticed" him in a non-trivial way; trivial would be a passing mention; i.e., "Player x homered to right". This is nothing of the sort.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I never wrote that all the coverage was routine, but apologies if that was your impression. This source was bordenline trivial IMO. If we can find at least two more sources of significant coverage, that would satisfy GNG's requirement for multiple sources. The problem I had in finding these was that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." —Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some is routine. As is always the case, with baseball players. But it may perhaps be less than fair to describe all of the coverage as such. See, as just one such example, "Jack Mealey Given Boost as Backstop", The Pittsburgh Press, February 1, 1931.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh, that's right. I forgot I even wrote that article. Alex (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all the reasons it was kept last time. I have always said the baseball notability threshold is far too high many many many minor leaguers easily pass GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree about WP:GNG, as it requires significant coverage and states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." WP:NSPORTS refers to this as WP:ROUTINE coverage that cannot be counted for purposes of notability. I'm willing to reconsider if anoyone can point out multiple sources of non-trivial coverage that I have overlooked. —Bagumba (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I disagree that the subject had a "run of the mill" career considering that he became a league president, as cited by The Sporting News on multiple occasions. The coverage of the player is not only routine as some have implied. I feel the subject did enough beyond just being a player to satisfy general notability guidelines. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 16:26, 25 July 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.