Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Fagin (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. The only outright delete came from John Pack Lambert using a rationale that was comprehensively rejected in a RFC. Whatever the merits of that argument, it cannot be said to be an argument from policy. A redirect was suggested to 1895 St. Louis Browns season but that has not had much traction, and in any case, more information in sources has been pointed to during this discussion making a merge less managable. SpinningSpark 12:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Fagin (baseball)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

non-notable one-gamer from the 19th-century. No birth date, no death date, no throwing stance, no batting stance (which are not barriers to notability themselves), but no WP:SIGCOV. Only mention I could find was in The Rank and File book, which says his first name is not known definitively, and his first name might be Fred. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's listed in The Baseball Encyclopedia (10th edition) as Fred Fagin. - Eureka Lott 21:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. someone is clearly trying to make a point with all these targeting of 19th century baseball figures... but these people are still notable. Spanneraol (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that he passes WP:GNG? Therapyisgood (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is the write-up from The Cincinnati Enquirer on Fagin's lone game on June 25, 1895 (including a brutal four errors). This supports the claim that he was a member of the Cincinnati Shamrocks, (apparently "well-known," and "popular," but to what degree, it's uncertain for now) but I don't see a mention of his first name here, or in a few other summaries of this game. I did, however, find a Joe Fagin catching for the Manhattans of Cincinnati in 1894. Apparently, he signed to appear with the Atlantas, but apparently had reservations about both playing there and going pro. So I would lean on this being the same player for the Browns the following year. Penale52 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All WP:ROUTINE, except maybe the first. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time we tightened baseball notability and started requiring multiple games played in the leagues where we treat every person who played in them as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#RfC_on_WP:NFOOTY_criteria_being_changed proposed changing NFOOTY from at least one game played to at least three games played, and it went down in flames. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which was an under publicized discussion. The discussion should have been notified onto deletion discussions related to footballers so people who have a general interest in the matter were better able to find out about it. This is the first I have seen any indication of it. However even the closer stated that the guidelines as present do not prevent deleting articles for which there is inadequate sourcing. It is time for Wikipedia to stop trying to be the sports Wikia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Also per NBASE and Spanneraol. Under the rationale by the nominator, a great many 19th century baseball players would be deleted (white, male, unknown batting and throwing information, lack of contemporary coverage unearthed from 130+ years ago). Neonblak ^talk - 15:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Newspapers.com findings, which imply that there was more coverage that hasn't been salvaged from the 19th century. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG as well as NBASE. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per NBASE. Rlendog (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plus it took me about 10 seconds on newspapers.com to find this and this, and newspapers.com hardly has a complete inventory of 19th century newspapers. Rlendog (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Baseball players are presumed notable if they have played in major leagues per WP:NBASE. With greatest respect to the nominator, more care needs to be taken when nominating. There are a few baseball players nominated for deletion when (in my view) no valid ground for deletion exists. I vote for many articles to be deleted for not being notable however care must be taken with older articles and those subjects where coverage is limited due to their age/whether different guidelines apply due to their field. Such-change47 (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1895 St. Louis Browns season as an ATD. This isn't close. We have nothing in the way of suitable, in depth sources to write a biography of the chap from. I find it surprising that the argument that he meets NBASE is even being made - I thought we'd moved on from the era of technical passes of sports notability guidelines without in depth sources being acceptable. There's an ATD - we should use it rather than delete; a note can be added on the roster to summarise everything we know about the chap and his baseball career. Both sentences should fit in a note without a problem. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Not convinced by the newspapers.com sources, almost all of which are either routine or give no SIGCOV. However, outright deletion is not a good idea. Is there a good redirect target like a list? Curbon7 (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2022 (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.