Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles Dodgers minor league players

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. Wizardman 15:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Dodgers minor league players[edit]

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to make a point. I'm just following the consensus established by numerous Wikipedian members that a player must meet GNG to be on this page. It's spelled out in my rationale above. The actions claimed to have precipitated this happened months ago and have not influenced this AfD. Alex (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia has numerous lists of topics, which topics in turn have wikipedia articles. See List of lists of lists. Wikipedia does not in such circumstances delete the list on the basis that the list is redundant. So I don't think this is a proper subject for AfD. (Also, "qualifying" for a wp article does not mean that a wp article will have been -- or need have been -- created). The only issue remaining is what entries are appropriate for this list. That can be determined by discussion on the article talk page, or other appropriate talk pages, but is not an appropriate subject for AfD I would think. Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Combine? In the past, I see, a number of such pages were nominated for deletion in a joint AfD. See here. I now notice that these AfDs of the same articles have been made individually. I would urge that they be combined, pronto, into one. Per WP:MULTIAFD. Having multiple discussions of the same issue would waste everyone's time, without any benefit. Epeefleche (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - This is a mass AfD which appears to be making a Point. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout per Muboshgu, Spanneraol and Mosaic. Rlendog (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Wikipedia community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:22, 6 November 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.