Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Novosel

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 speedy keep. This AfD appears to have been started only because the nominator (who is also the article creator) no longer likes it. By the way, Alex, I think reading WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE might be in order. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Novosel[edit]

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

Frank Novesel was a minor league baseball player and manager who wasn't very notable in either role. As a player, he played in only 460 games over the course of nine seasons - that is not remarkable and similar careers are commonplace in the minor leagues. In addition, he batted only .245, which means he was not notable for his hitting prowess. As a manager, he never led a team to a championship, leading two teams to the playoffs but losing in the first round both times. He scouted for the Yankees for a spell, however this must not be too notable as the details surrounding his time as a scout are sparse. I put him up for AfD because I'd rather have an electorate decide whether his article stays or goes instead of one person (an admin or what have you). Alex (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe you should take your articles to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Peer review if you want to form a consensus on notability. If I may be frank, these AfDs clog-up the Baseball-related deletion discussions and have no real purpose. Maybe you should also see Wikipedia:Articles for creation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could. But I'm not going to. Alex (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you didn't feel he was notable, then why did you create the article in the first place? Stop wasting our time with all these afds. Spanneraol (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is it really that much of a problem? Wasting your time? What time? The 32 seconds it takes to read it? If you don't want to deal with it, don't view it. Pay it no mind if you don't like it. To answer your question - I originally set out to create articles for all minor league managers that had red links. However, as I got a ways into it I realized many of these very likely aren't notable enough for articles - hence they end up here. Alex (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and be civil. It seems that you have an issue with us requesting you to stop pointlessly AfD-ing articles you created. Maybe you should consider changing your course of action in the AfD process if you don't like our comments. We are just stating how we feel, something that you seem to champion when you say "[you'd] rather have an electorate decide". Well, we are deciding, aren't we? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not pointless. Pointless would be to continue this process if all 33 of the articles I have previously nominated for deletion had been decidedly kept. However, that is far from the case--in fact, 21--or 64%--have ended up being deleted. So, there is a point. I apologize if I come across with an attitude, but the condescending arrogance, ubiquitous pomposity and "holier than thou" air that permeate this website get very tiring, very quickly--as does being told the same things over and over. I know some want me to stop, however as long as a majority are getting deleted I'm not going to. If they are getting deleted, then I am doing what the majority of the electorate wants--removing the more or less trivial riff-raff from this website. Alex (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close This is starting to get way too WP:POINTY. I don't know what's gotten you so upset and snappy at others that you'd nominate articles you created and expanded for deletion, but your dismissive tone from any request to do something productive instead of destructive is becoming too much. The players don't have to suffer because of an editor's mood swings. Stop. Vodello (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not trying to make a point. This has been a slow process I have been doing for what seems like a year. I am slowly going through all of the suspect pages I have previously created, eliminating the inevitability of someone else nominating them for deletion. Of course, you are an inclusionist--such an adverse reaction is expected. I am not necessarily deletionist, which is why I am leaving it up to an electorate to delete it, or keep it if they wish. Speaking of WP:POINT, it seems as if you yourself are trying to make a point by saying to keep this article, rather than objectively reviewing this case coming to a true conclusion. See! I can read random things into other people's actions too! Alex (talk) 05:54, 3 August 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.