Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Field

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Field[edit]

[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)

Unsure if this is notable enough for this baseballer to have an article based on the date of career and the absense of sources. The content is also just one sentence and two external links. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Field is covered in some detail by both David Nemec in The Rank and File and by Paul Batesel in Players and Teams of the NA, and mentioned in this book about Pud Galvin. Based on these sources, I believe he meets NBASIC, and in any case I don't think deleting this article would improve Wikipedia. Hatman31 (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He played pro ball for 15 years, much of his career occurring before the formation of MLB. The sources describe him as "one of the best catchers of his time" and "one of the leading baseball players" of his section of the country. Moreover, the books referenced above (and now cited in the article) represent SIGCOV and demonstrate his enduring relevance. Cbl62 (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recently added sources. Spanneraol (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Hog Farm _Talk 13:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I do believe this article should now be kept after the recent edits made with sources added and 100% consensus of keeping per above. Thanks to those who edited the article since the nomination. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 18:07, 19 October 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.