Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Henry Williams (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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Williams (baseball)

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. Williams did nothing notable. Clearly fails WP:GNG. ...William 10:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Alcor controversy was notable. Probably was BLP1E though. Undecided at the moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTINHERITED is not applicable here because the subject has received coverage for his own actions and certainly substantial coverage way beyond what the typical child of a baseball player - even a Hall of Fame baseball player - achieves. And I don't understand the basis for the comment in the nomination that he "clearly fails WP:GNG," since the subject has been covered in numerous articles. Many of those involved the Alcor controversy, so WP:BLP1E could be argued, but I don't see any of the specific elements of BLP1E actually applying here, let alone all of them. In particular, with respect to criterion 1, there are reliable sources covering other aspects of the subject, such as his abortive baseball career, his business dealings and his death, for example, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (some of these of course touch his his Alcor role, which was his most prominent claim to fame, but also address the other topics). With respect to criterion 2, he was not a "low profile" individual. And with respect to #3, his role in Alcor was substantial. On #3 one might argue that the Alcor controversy was not significant enough - although it generated substantial press coverage - but even if he fails #3, BLP1E would require failing all three criteria, not just one of them. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but perhaps rename as he really is not notable for his baseball career so a different disamb would probably be appropriate.Spanneraol (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for meeting WP:GNG. There are many sources dedicated just to him.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; ~~WP:MLB/N seems to indicate all Major League Baseball players are notable, and~~ the Alcor thing gets him through WP:GNG. I should point out that I came here expecting to be a voice for deletion.♥ «Charles A. L.» (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was never a Major League Baseball player. Spanneraol (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I misread the article.♥ «Charles A. L.» (talk) 14:32, 3 June 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.