Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Bradley

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. The consensus below is that the coverage of his career is sufficient to justify an article even though he never played in the majors. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Bradley

Bobby Bradley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:BASE/N as he never played in the major leagues and he fails WP:GNG. Most coverage appears to be WP:ROUTINE. Alex (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Seven sources that discuss the subject, some in more detail than others, but certainly sufficient to establish GNG for this former top prospect (Baseball America rated him #20 in the country, he participated in the All-Star Futures Game). The sources certainly do not cover him in a WP:ROUTINE way; that would be game recaps, mainly. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Promising minor-leaguer bombs out after 5-6 injury-plagued years. Available sources indicate that he might have become notable had he stayed healthy. But he did not. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Notability isn't dependent on anything: either you are notable or you are not. The coverage he received establishes GNG. Available sources indicated that he might've passed BASE/N, but established GNG when they were published. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per Muboshgu above - signicant coverage in several reliable sources spanning a seven year period is more more than enough to pass WP:GNG. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Muboshgu. Seems to easily meet GNG. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Hot pitching prospect blows out arm and never makes it to the majors. A story made many times. The media coverage is routine.- William 02:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding sports, WP:ROUTINE speaks of mentions of sporting events, leading me to think of box scores and the like. Coverage this player received is therefore beyond routine coverage. He became notable before he blew out his arm, and blowing out his arm can't take notability away. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - as Muboshgu states, he meets WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG. He was named a High School All-American, which passes WP:NCOLLATH in principle.--TM 20:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Coverage from reliable sources establishes WP:GNG. WP:ROUTINE shouldn't be thrown around as a reason to delete when there is coverage that is non-routine. WP:ROUTINE needs to be actually read before attempting to be applied to an AFD discussion, instead of reading the definition of the word routine on Wikitionary. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 23:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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.