Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Durley

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. Review of discussion. He doesn't meet WP:NSPORT but he barely meets WP:GNG. Since this coverage is for more then one event, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Overall there is no consensus to delete this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Durley[edit]

Aaron Durley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not inherently notable, only for one event. Other than BLP1E, subject also fails WP:ATHLETE. Delete. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 14:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the notability guidelines the nominator says the subject fails: "Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they: 1. have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." I am of the opinion that the Little League World Series is a major international amateur competition at the highest level for baseball players of Durley's age group. Kinston eagle (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • From Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Baseball: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." If minor league players are not notable, what makes little leaguers more notable?! Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you are quoting from is the baseball section for "Professional sports persons". Durley is not a professional and therefore does not fall under that section of the guidelines. Kinston eagle (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • He would fall under the "Amateur sports persons" section of the guideline which doesnt really mention 12 year olds because I think no one considered them notable... the closest would be high school player guideline which calls for "substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." I fail to see how this guy received substantial and prolonged coverage... All mentions of him seem to be just about how odd it is that he is that tall. I cant even find a source that says how he actually did in the series. Spanneraol (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Little League players fail the notability guidelines. Possibly some of the information can be merges to the 2005 Little League World Series page, but this individual player by himself is not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what way specifically do Little League players fail the notability guidelines? Kinston eagle (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are not competing at the highest level of the sport. Do we seriously want to now say that appearing in the Little League World Series now makes someone notable? We don't even do that for the College World Series. This would set a bad precedent. Spanneraol (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we shouldn't consider the LLWS the "highest level of competition in the sport", but if this case is considered notable, it's not for his participation in the LLWS so much as it is for his size. This article being kept does not set a precedent that all participants of the LLWS, or CWS, or whatever other event, are inherently notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable, per coverage, including that reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- in addition to being mentioned in coverage in 2 little league world series, including articles about him specifically, he has been covered for three years vis a vis his high school basketball career, which include being second team all state this year in his soph year.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the point made by Kinston eagle. Also, the subject seems to meet the general notability guidelines. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a case of BLP1E, since he is notable for his amateur sporting career (a period of time) and unusual physical characteristics (a permanent, or at least persistent state) rather than just one event (the 2005 Little League World Series). Notable persons do not lose notability due to having simply receded from active media coverage. --MCB (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. I failed to, in addition to the above, address the nom's point, which MCB has now ably done -- and I concur with him.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"He is notable for his amateur sporting career". Is he? I see no claim of that in the article. WP:ATHLETE#Baseball doesn't even treat professional minor leaguers as notable, so how is an amateur youth notable? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. Minor league baseball players can be notable if the adhere to the general notability guidelines. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor league players tend to be merged to their own subsection. Technically every minor league player meets GNG as the local news sources cover their high-school, college, and minor league career, with passing mentions, etc. But that doesn't mean they deserve their own article. Secret account 18:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is also not true. Typically, there is no move discussion on minor league players, so it is one editor's decision to move it. Most of the time, with exceptions, minor leaguers in the modern era that have played roughly three seasons and have competed well satisfy the general notability guidelines, but often that is not reflected in the article. This leaves it up to one user, who may not have researched the player, to decide if it should be merged. In most circumstances, the articles are merged. But, if they tend to be lengthy, well-written articles that utilize the coverage, they are generally left alone. I'm sorry to go off on a tangent, I'm just making an effort to put an end to the "minor league players = non-notable" myth. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a tangent. But, given that many of us also touch on those articles, within the rare group of those I would think a helpful one. I agree w/Brian's comment. Also suggest this article be speedied -- the refs at gnews show he has been covered for years, internationally, for more than one event.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only coverage of him seems to be as a curiosity at those two little league world series.. No substantial coverage, no discussion of how he did in the series. Nothing to establish notability.Spanneraol (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw at least half a dozen articles (not even counting the pay view ones) that mention how he did in one or more games of the series, both batting and pitching.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Weak Keep and maybe switching to the delete side later. I'm wishy washy about this one. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of a BLP1E that can be included in the articles for two different events? Maybe he's an example of a BLP2E. Kinston eagle (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." So Durley is an essentially low-profile individual who was the subject of a bit of human interest news coverage during a couple of Little League World Series and otherwise is of no enduring interest. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but the standard suggested by the subject of this article is pretty indiscriminate. BRMo (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Athletes are explicitly exempt from the GNG, and do not need to prove notability in any way, shape or form. He exists, and he has at one point played baseball, so we should spend a proportion of this site's resources covering him. —WFC— 08:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy that at all. Who says athletes are exempt from GNG? GNG supersedes everything. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is making a WP:POINT comment/vote because he is mad that the soccer articles he keeps nominating keep getting kept. Ignore him. -DJSasso (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that opinion, he played baseball for a Little League which is amatur baseball, athletes aren't except for GNG Secret account 18:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Highest level" is not qualified, it means the very highest level (world championships, Olympics etc). Baseball at the highest level is not an amateur sport. In soccer, appearance for U16/U18/U20/U23 international teams do not confer notability. Kevin McE (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In practice it is qualified. The ladies who won olympic medals in women's basketball were not competing at the highest level of amateur basketball. They were competing at the highest level for their sex. The same can be said of women's hockey, track and field events, etc.... Durley was competing at the highest level for people of his age group. Kinston eagle (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete little leaguers don't deserves an article (with a rare exception) like Almonte which has lasting effects on Little League play, and left a huge scandal in the sports world in general. This little leaguer has no lasting effect on baseball. Just because he's tall doesn't mean he deserves an article. WP:BLP1E applies here. Also the guideline must be changed for the exclusion of little league world series participants, as some of the keep voters are keeping the article because there isn't any mention of them on the guideline. Secret account 18:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its current state. WP:NSPORT, specifically High school and pre-high school athletes, says he doesn't automatically get an article as participation in a Little League competition is not inherently notable enough. I don't think there's enough to show he meets WP:GNG either.  Afaber012  (talk)  21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This athlete was not participating in interscholastic competition. He was in "a major international amateur ... competition" and should be considered notable for that reason. Kinston eagle (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So should thousands of kids who played in the world series, and the onslought of WP:BLPs issues that we don't need. Secret account 22:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That "major international amateur competition" quote doesn't show the full intent. The full quote is (with my own emphasis added): "Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they: have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." The "High school and pre-high school athletes" section of the guideline says nothing about interscholastic competitions. It says that they "... are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." I've not seen evidence that substantial, prolonged, independent and non-routine coverage is available for him.
And since you brought it up, I'm not sure that the Little League World Series counts as a major international competition. The IBAF World Rankings uses a series of different tournaments to ranking countries, and it refers to "major" and "minor" world championships. The minor championships include several that have age restrictions on players. Now I would be willing to hear out an argument that says that what IBAF calls minor championships count as major competitions for us on Wikipedia. (Not sure about it but not something I'd dismiss automatically.) But when the international governing body doesn't consider it, I wouldn't either.
And in trying to anticipate the rebuttal argument to this... I realise that the Little League World Series is probably closer in style of competition to the Champions League Twenty20 or UEFA Champions League, neither of which count towards the respective sports international rankings. Both of those competitions are international, but participation in them is not what qualifies the players under the guideline, because they are qualified by the competitions below being notable. None of the various local Little League competitions are considered notable for their players to have their own articles. Players and teams in Little League aren't automatically notable enough to get their own article. There's got to be unusually high levels of coverage for them to be notable.  Afaber012  (talk)  23:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adequate sources provided to back notability. The picture clinches it for me. Alansohn (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reliable sources that have established general notability guidelines. Vodello (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Coverage clearly meets notability guidleines for inclusion. Nominating justification of BLP1E does not apply due to continuing coverage of a sporting career. There are precedents, such as Freddy Adu, which show that very young sports phenoms, can merit a separate article.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage in 2005, again in 2006, and all the articles since then completely obliterates WP:EVENT. Grsz11 03:25, 9 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aaron_Durley&oldid=1137533169"