Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Papelbon

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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Papelbon[edit]

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

Like his brother, he's a non notable minor leaguer. He wouldn't have an article on wikipedia if not for his other brother. Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources out there. Mostly because he is Jonathan's brother, but still, they are out there. Meets WP:GNG. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Average minor league player. Only having references because he is John's brother does not make him notable, per WP:INHERIT. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Below-average minor-league player, has already washed out of the Red Sox organization: does not meet WP:ATHLETE. If there's something notable there, merge it with Jonathan Papelbon per WP:INHERITED. THF (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 28 years old and didn't even make it in double-A? Sorry, not remotely notable. Yes, I'm sure we could fill Wikipedia up - were WP:INHERITED repealed - with articles based around puff pieces of Joanne The Mechanic, sister of the senator, but I don't consider the GNG satisfied when no one in creation would have noticed if the subject's family weren't famous. Ravenswing 18:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The idea behind WP:INHERIT is being misconstrued. It is not valid to say just because it he is a brother of someone notable, he should be kept. But if interdependent reliable sources look at the subject and write about it because his brother is a famous major leaguer, then they have the right. That doesn't violate WP:GNG. It's unavoidable the sources are going to mention his brother. Take for example these: [1], [2], [3], [4]. With countless more it's obvious it meets GNG. But all anyone can care about is what level they made it to or how he's "washed up" or how minor leaguers aren't notable. I have a question, why is that? Why if a subject obviously meets GNG should we delete it? It makes no sense. Take for example Ollie Carnegie, a career minor leaguer. And look at the sources on the article. Being a minor league is not directly related to meeting the general notability guidelines (and in reverse). --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of those articles would have been written if not for his relationship to Jonathan Papelbon. That makes any notability he may have dependent on his brother, which makes this fail WP:INHERIT. I should have cited that from the get go. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doesn't matter what the intent of the article was from the start. On your part, that's just pure speculation. What does matter is that the subject meets the general notability guidelines, which it does. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All four of those articles are leading with "he's the brother of someone famous and successful." That's not speculation, it's the premise of the articles, which make it noteworthy enough for inclusion on Jonathan Papelbon's page, but not noteworthy enough to create separate pages for his brothers. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the current premise of the article shouldn't be what we are focused on. I agree, the article is in bad shape now. But the subject is obviously notable. Can you object to that? Can you object the sourcing I have provided and the numerous other material there is out there? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I nominated this page for deletion (and Jeremy's) is that I object to the idea that they are notable. I don't believe that the sourcing you provided establishes the notability of the subject because his claim to fame is his brother. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage to pass the GNG. The fact that he may have only gotten such coverage because he was someone's brother is irrelevant. DC T•C 20:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This clarifies my point. It doesn't matter if the journalist covering it only did it because his brother is a major leaguer. In fact, I think if I was writing a journalistic article on him, that's the angle I would pick. But this article could be the cornerstone for the his Wikipedia article. It is in depth and directly about the subject. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From WP:INHERIT: "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative." (emphasis mine)

To me, it's pretty straightforward. Little Paplebon has done nothing significant or notable in his own right and would not have anything written on him if he did not have a famous brother. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He does. Are the articles I have submitted not about him? He meets WP:GNG. As I stated previously, WP:INHERIT is being abused. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The emphasis is there to suggest that all of those criteria are not enough to guarantee notability, if there is some other policy the article violates. I believe the little Papelbon's both ~~clearly~~ fail WP:ATHLETE, as they haven't done anything significant in their own right. Therefore, WP:INHERIT is in play. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't fail WP:ATHLETE. "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The Boston Globe, MLB.com, and countless others have covered him. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't played in the highest level of the sport. Considering the notability isn't independent of his brother, I think he fails WP:ATHLETE. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, from WP:ATHLETE: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." These ([5], [6], [7], [8]) establish that. And that's not what "independant" means in this case. It just means the article is not published by someone or some organization that has benefit from it being published (i.e. his team). --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant with my use of "independent", that was a poor choice of words. I meant to say his notability isn't separate from that of his brother. Because of WP:INHERIT, I believe he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG, because without his familial relationship, he's just one of a long line of minor league baseball players that doesn't make it to The Show.--Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point, but I believe we can't measure what could be. The fact is there are sources out there on him. They all mention his famous brother, sure, but the articles themselves are about Josh. I mean, who would Laura Bush be if her husband wasn't a politician? That's what the argument looks like to me. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Bush isn't a good comparable, because she was a First Lady, a position mentioned in WP:INHERIT as an example where notability is not inherited, even though it may seem to be. These articles aren't about "Josh", they are about "Josh, Jonathan's brother". They wouldn't exist without Jonathan. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is, he is a professional baseball player. It's not like he's just his brother. If you compare it to other minor leagues, his stats aren't bad, nor are they good. But you can't determine what sources would be where in a hypothetical circumstance. I have seen minor leaguers with less sources pass WP:GNG. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it becomes a WP:WAX debate, and we're talking in circles. We shouldn't vote because he might not be notable if the circumstances were different. He's a professional baseball player who has been covered extensively. He is deserving of his own article. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's professional but not at the highest level. The highest level in this country is MLB, and he hasn't reached it, nor is he likely to ever reach it. I think it's clear from the articles that he was only considered notable enough to write about in the context of his brother. How many of those similar minor league players get written up at all? If not for his brother, there would be no debate here: this article would be deleted without contest. I do agree about the WAX. There's not much more either of us can say. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge To Boston Red Sox minor league players. He is a solid minor league player so he might one day make the big leagues - might as well keep the article we have of him somewhere. Alex (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's not in the Red Sox organization any more. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I say keep then merge when he signs on with someone new. Alex (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean if he signs on with someone new. He's 27, has only appeared in 2 games above A-ball, and last year was released by his independent league team. -Dewelar (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't played in the majors, is not now and never was a prospect. Notable only because of his brother, and given his status the possibility that he makes it to the majors is vanishingly small. -Dewelar (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, hasn't played in the majors and doesn't look like he will. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:21, 28 November 2010 (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.