Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Cilladi

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Aside from the question of bullpen catchers in general (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heberto Andrade), this individual has received significant coverage per the GNG. Cerebellum (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cilladi[edit]

Steve Cilladi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bullpen catchers aren't inherently notable, and this one doesn't seem to have the sources to pass GNG (I wouldn't consider the one source in the article to be a strong RS). Wizardman 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The source in the article is a pretty substantial profile of him and it is a reliable source. Spanneraol (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Quality over quantity. That is one heck of a feature article on a reputable sports site. I am willing to make an exception and count that one source as the requisite "significant coverage" to meet GNG. Go Phightins! 01:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One piece of significant coverage isn't enough for GNG. I'd think that if this LA bullpen catcher was notable, he'd have coverage in the LA Times. He doesn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. Alex (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite what others claim, bullpen catchers aren't coaches any more than a batting practice pitcher is a coach. Also, since when does one article on a team-specific site constitute "significant coverage" for purposes of passing GNG? Some of you guys just make up the rules as you go along. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do think that one piece we're talking about does constitute a piece of "significant coverage", because it does significantly cover him. That said, you have a good point about it being a "team-specific site". More specifically, it's True Blue LA, which is the Dodgers-specific site within SB Nation. According to GNG, notability often requires multiple sources, but in some cases can be based on one source alone. If this was the LA Times, I'd say one source of that nature might be enough to make the individual notable. However, as it's only a team-specific site within SB Nation, I require more than just the one source to say this individual has met GNG. And as I pointed out above, LA Times, which you would reasonably think would cover the guy, has nothing of the sort on him. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BASEBALL/N states that if the person ever appeared in a Major League Baseball at least once, then the player is notable.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 21:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This player is covered in the roster of players --Lfrankblam 17:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)
  • Keep one good source is sufficient, IMO. What matters to me is whether content that establishes notability can be sourced. It does not matter how many sources are used.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One story on a team site now constitutes "significant coverage" for purposes of meeting GNG? You've got to be kidding. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Contrary to the above, nothing has been "decided" regarding bullpen catchers. The above AfD was a 6-4 keep! back in 2007, with multiple keep! voters using their own made-up interpretation of BASE/N. I have provided all sorts of proof that bullpen catchers aren't considered coaches by MLB, which certain people here are ignoring. If bullpen catchers were coaches, they would 1) count against MLB's seven-coach limit (which they currently do not), 2) have "coach" in their title, like EVERY OTHER COACH IN MLB, and 3) generate sufficient media citations such that BASE/N would be irrelevant, because the subjects would pass GNG. Not a single Wiki page for a current MLB pitching coach, hitting coach, bench coach, first base coach, third base coach, or bullpen coach is relying on BASE/N to justify the Wiki page's existence — every single one of them passes GNG based on media coverage. If bullpen catchers were really coaches, they, too, would generate huge amounts of media coverage, which all of these guys lack. (There are five pending AfDs for bullpen catchers, and not a one of them passes GNG based on media citations, which should tell us something about their notability.) It's time to use some common sense here. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Dodgers site lists him as a coach. If they did not consider him a coach they would list him with the other staff. [2]. If the Dodgers consider him one of their coaches then he is. Rlendog (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since GNG no longer applies I withdraw this. Wizardman 01:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: to substitute for Wizardman. Otherwise I'm creating an article on my grandma who had a similar profile done regarding her garden club activities in 1989.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:13, 29 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Cilladi&oldid=1078522908"