Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homar Rojas
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 no consensus. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Homar Rojas[edit]
- Homar Rojas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article doesn't really establish notability--just playing for a long time in minor league baseball is not inherently notable. The only reference/link is to another Wiki. Alex (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Baseball figures are presumed notable if they ... Have appeared in at least one game in ... any other top-level, well-established national league (active or defunct) that itself has notable coverage outside the primary language of that league's country." I am of the opinion that the Mexican League meets this standard of baseball's notability guidelines. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, that's correct. Really though, I have a problem with that standard, saying that the Mexican League, which is considered on par with Triple-A, is the equivalent of MLB. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, thinking about it some more, does it really have "notable coverage outside the primary language of that league's country"? I don't see much of anything about the Mexican League. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's language that was inserted into the guideline in question on the sly by the nominator, without discussion or consensus on the applicable talk page. As such, I have reverted it to the previously established consensus language, until such time as Alex can demonstrate that consensus has shifted to support his position. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Mexican League meeting "top-level, well-established national league (active or defunct) that itself has notable coverage outside the primary language of that league's country." Even though the Mexican League is not "the equivalent of MLB," the same could be said of any other national league. Rlendog (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True. If we ever revisit baseball notability, I may try to propose limiting that automatic qualifier to the bigger ones, like MLB, NPB, CPBL, KBL, and others like that, while not qualifying every "top-level" league without a consideration of what "top-level" means. But for today, this is a
keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I've decided to vote delete, my reasoning below. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True. If we ever revisit baseball notability, I may try to propose limiting that automatic qualifier to the bigger ones, like MLB, NPB, CPBL, KBL, and others like that, while not qualifying every "top-level" league without a consideration of what "top-level" means. But for today, this is a
- Delete I think we need to establish by consensus at some point whether the Mexican League actually does meet the criteria spelled out above. Unlike other such leagues, the LMB actually has a working relationship with MLB and has the status of a Triple-A league. As such, I do not believe it meets the "top-level" portion of the requirements to allow for the conferring of assumed notability. -Dewelar (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point, the working relationship. It is "top-level" in Mexico, though. I want to see LMB decertified as "top-level" in our books. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a higher level league in Mexico? Kinston eagle (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. A question for you: so what? Baseball is an international game. The best players go to MLB or the top Asian leagues. They don't stay in Mexico. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? So the notability guideline specifically assumes notability if the person has "appeared in at least one game in ... any other top-level, well-established national league." By your own admission, he has appeared in the Mexican League which is national in scope and is the top level found in the entire country. If you want the guideline changed to "any other top-level, well-established national league except in Mexico," bring that argument up at the guideline's talk page. This isn't the place for that. This AfD page is for discussion on whether this specific player is notable by the guideline's criteria. The way the guideline's are written at this moment, he is. Kinston eagle (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why, you'll notice, my vote still says keep. Though I am tempted by Dewelar's argument that the Mexican League is not the top-level league due to its agreement with MLB. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, I'd like to see a consensus at WP:BASEBALL to decide the matter. I'm open to the idea of the Mexican League conferring notability (especially, as I've said in the past, for the years when players were blackballed for playing there), but I think some broader discussion is needed to establish whether it should or not. -Dewelar (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the guy who wrote the section on foreign leagues in the notability guideline, and I definitely considered the Mexican League to qualify at the time I wrote it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did everybody else involved at the time know that? -Dewelar (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much, yeah. There was actually a good bit of support for saying that all long-tenured AAA players were inherently notable, although we ultimately ended up setting the bar a bit higher than that. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did everybody else involved at the time know that? -Dewelar (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the guy who wrote the section on foreign leagues in the notability guideline, and I definitely considered the Mexican League to qualify at the time I wrote it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, I'd like to see a consensus at WP:BASEBALL to decide the matter. I'm open to the idea of the Mexican League conferring notability (especially, as I've said in the past, for the years when players were blackballed for playing there), but I think some broader discussion is needed to establish whether it should or not. -Dewelar (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why, you'll notice, my vote still says keep. Though I am tempted by Dewelar's argument that the Mexican League is not the top-level league due to its agreement with MLB. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? So the notability guideline specifically assumes notability if the person has "appeared in at least one game in ... any other top-level, well-established national league." By your own admission, he has appeared in the Mexican League which is national in scope and is the top level found in the entire country. If you want the guideline changed to "any other top-level, well-established national league except in Mexico," bring that argument up at the guideline's talk page. This isn't the place for that. This AfD page is for discussion on whether this specific player is notable by the guideline's criteria. The way the guideline's are written at this moment, he is. Kinston eagle (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer Kinston Eagle: the higher-level league in Mexico is, quite simply, MLB, because Mexico does not recognize the Mexican League as the highest-level league within its own country. MLB is officially a higher-level league than the Mexican League, as recognized by the LMB itself. Therefore they are not, de jure as well as de facto, the highest-level league in their country. -Dewelar (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguing that there is no top-level league in Mexico is a pretty curious position to take, given that there are professional players playing ball there and games being held pretty much every day. If there's no league, then who's paying the players, and what are the fans who go to the games watching? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also note that the Mexican League existed long before there was any sort of agreement with MLB. As such, your reasoning totally collapses when applied to any Mexican League players from the period before the agreement was signed. Also note that unlike the affiliated minor leagues, the Mexican League teams do not have formal affiliation agreements with individual MLB clubs. They locate and sign their own players, and if a MLB club is interested in acquiring one of those players, it must come to an agreement with that club on a case-by-case basis - just like any other top-level national league. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first statement you made here is dependent on your definition of top-level. If a league recognizes another league as being of a higher level (which NPB, CPBL, etc., do not, but LMB does), and indeed considers itself a minor league, is it really "top-level"? I would argue that it is not. Note that the guideline does not say "highest level within the country" -- it says "top-level", which is more vague. (On a side note, "well-established" is also vague -- should the IBL qualify, as it's apparently been around for 60+ years?) As for the second statement, I have said previously that I would probably support pre-MLB agreement era Mexican League for notability (I implied it above as well, but it really doesn't pertain to Rojas). The rest of the second statement follows directly from the first statement. -Dewelar (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The language about "top-level leagues" was only inserted to prevent players from short-season leagues (i.e. winter-league teams) or foreign minor leagues (like the scout teams for NPB clubs) from being considered inherently notable, as those clubs are roughly analogous to the US affiliated minors. If you find the wording to be unclear, the guideline should probably be updated to reflect the intended meaning. I can assure you that nobody intended to exclude the Mexican League based on the sort of convoluted logic that you're applying - the Mexican League is one of the three highest-caliber foreign leagues in existence, along with Japan and Cuba. It'd be totally crazy to include Italian or Taiwanese or Israeli teams that are of a much lower quality, relatively speaking, while crossing out the Mexican League. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This makes a certain degree of sense, although there's a further piece to my thinking: I may be mistaken on this, but I am under the impression that MLB teams tend to sign the top Mexican players before they get to the LMB in the same way they do players from the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, which is also untrue of the NPB/CPBL/KBO. If that's not correct then that would change my position to a degree. Either way, I think it would probably be worthwhile to get an idea of where consensus is at on the matter right now -- for instance, at this point, consensus seems to be that while CPBL players are notable, the Italian and Israeli Leagues are not, a position with which I have not been given reason to disagree, but might not be where you or someone else stands. -Dewelar (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good point. For every LMB veteran to jump to MLB (like an Alfredo Aceves), there are many more Mexican teenagers who sign without playing any LMB ball (like Manny Banuelos). I'm increasingly seeing LMB as no longer meeting criteria of a "top-level" league, regardless of country. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you check, you'll see that all Mexican nationals signing with a MLB club technically first sign with a LMB club, who then sells their contract (and rights) to the MLB club that wants them. Banuelos, for example, signed with the Sultanes de Monterrey before his rights were transferred to the Yankees (as per this NYT link). 75% of the player's MLB signing bonus goes to the player's Mexican club, and the remaining 25% goes to the player (see this article about the Pittsburgh Pirates' signing of Luis Heredia). That agreement is the whole reason behind the LMB's loose association with MLB in the first place. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, then it has no effect on my vote whatsoever. Essentially, it's a convoluted method for MLB to subsidize the LMB -- Banuelos was only a member of Los Sultanes on paper so that LMB could get its payoff. That might even lower its status in my opinion. -Dewelar (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That "convoluted method" is, however, the only formal contact between MLB clubs and LMB ones (except the sale or loan of an unwanted MLB player to a LMB club, which also happens from time to time). Which places it on an entirely different footing than all clubs in the US minors, who have a formal affiliation with one particular MLB club and are supplied with (or relieved of) players exclusively by that one MLB club. That subordinate status of US minor league clubs is what the guideline was written to emphasize, and it's simply not present for LMB clubs. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The same thing could be said of independent minor league clubs, which is exactly what the LMB clubs are. Allowing the LMB as currently structured to be notable and not the independent minors would be a biased viewpoint in that regard. -Dewelar (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it could, except that independent minor league clubs in the US are, by definition, not the top-level league in their country, due to the existence of MLB. As such, excluding them while including the LMB is hardly "biased". -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is. If we are using the level and status of a league to determine its ability to impart notability, then to treat two leagues that have the same level and status differently because they are in different countries is pretty much the definition of bias. -Dewelar (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to understand that the LMB's status as a AAA league is pretty much nominal. Alone among leagues with a level classification, its teams are not affiliated with a MLB franchise. They operate with complete independence. They sign, trade, and release players without input from any MLB franchise. Therefore, they do NOT have the same "status" as the IL or the PCL, and your argument about "bias" is nonsensical. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is. If we are using the level and status of a league to determine its ability to impart notability, then to treat two leagues that have the same level and status differently because they are in different countries is pretty much the definition of bias. -Dewelar (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it could, except that independent minor league clubs in the US are, by definition, not the top-level league in their country, due to the existence of MLB. As such, excluding them while including the LMB is hardly "biased". -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The same thing could be said of independent minor league clubs, which is exactly what the LMB clubs are. Allowing the LMB as currently structured to be notable and not the independent minors would be a biased viewpoint in that regard. -Dewelar (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also worth noting that these signings with LMB clubs are anything but paper transactions - the players in question spend at least several months with their LMB clubs, work out at team facilities with other members of the team, and if they're good enough, pitch in LMB games. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also unclear as to why an understanding of the details of the system by which LMB clubs sell players to MLB organizations would lower your opinion of the LMB, since on a fundamental level it's not significantly different than the posting system by which NPB players are transferred from their NPB clubs to MLB ones. The only difference is the length of the time the player is under contract with the team from his native country prior to the transfer. Or do you also hold a similarly low opinion of NPB? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing that suggests Banuelos ever played in the LMB. Heredia's case appears slightly different, in that according to the article Heredia seems to have pitched minimally at best so as not to overwork him and diminish his value to MLB teams. There are no stats for either player on the BBRef minor league database, and given the nebulous nature of the Heredia article there seems to be no real evidence that he pitched in the LMB either. Both players seem to have been signed by the LMB specifically with the end goal of selling them to MLB, which is not the case with any player in NPB of which I'm aware. -Dewelar (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Banuelos didn't play in league games because at that time, he wasn't good enough - during his time in Mexico, his fastball topped out at 86 MPH. Hardly surprising, given that he was seventeen years old (i.e. with the physical development of a high school junior), and would have been playing against full-grown men. He did, however, spend "several months" working with his LMB team (as per this article). Heredia spent even more time with his LMB club (Veracruz). He signed with them on January 1, 2010, and remained with them until August 19 (Link). Both were seen as prospects by their signing teams, to develop for a time and then either sell to another team at a profit or to use in their own organization once they had matured enough.-Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that pretty much seems to support my point. If they were good enough to play in the U.S. minors, they would never actually play in LMB. -Dewelar (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fernando Valenzuela would certainly be surprised to hear that he wasn't good enough to play in the US minors...-Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As would Teddy Higuera, Erubiel Durazo, Fernando Salas, Oscar Robles, Francisco Cordova, Ricardo Rincon, Rodrigo Lopez, Walter Silva, etc. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fernando Valenzuela would certainly be surprised to hear that he wasn't good enough to play in the US minors...-Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that pretty much seems to support my point. If they were good enough to play in the U.S. minors, they would never actually play in LMB. -Dewelar (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your NPB analogy doesn't work because NPB clubs retain the rights of signed amateurs for a much longer time than LMB ones do, due to the nature of the league's operating agreement. Japanese players have much less leverage. There are, however, numerous NPB players who requested that their teams make them available to US clubs via the posting system as soon as the operating agreement permitted them to do so. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be because the NPB is not a US minor league, which the Mexican League, in essence, is. -Dewelar (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate? Your remark doesn't seem to make any sense, so I'm obviously not understanding the point you were trying to make. You seem to be drawing a distinction based on a relatively trivial difference between NPB and the LMB (i.e. the amount of time signed players remain under their club's control), while overlooking a much more important structural similarity (both leagues sell players to MLB, and in neither league is a team affiliated with a specific MLB franchise). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, the nature of the working relationship between NPB and MLB and the working relationship of LMB and MLB are not equivalent. NPB is recognized as an independent major league, while LMB serves as an independent minor league. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the purposes of this discussion, I think that "independent" is a lot more important than "major". The former distinguishes it from typical minor leagues, while the latter is mitigated by its overwhelming prominence within Mexico. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the best argument to keep I've heard here. You are right that in the IL and PCL, teams have direct affiliations, while in LMB, they don't. Of course, in the Northern League, Atlantic League of Professional Baseball, and others, they also don't have affiliations. Granted those are clearly minor leagues. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the purposes of this discussion, I think that "independent" is a lot more important than "major". The former distinguishes it from typical minor leagues, while the latter is mitigated by its overwhelming prominence within Mexico. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, the nature of the working relationship between NPB and MLB and the working relationship of LMB and MLB are not equivalent. NPB is recognized as an independent major league, while LMB serves as an independent minor league. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate? Your remark doesn't seem to make any sense, so I'm obviously not understanding the point you were trying to make. You seem to be drawing a distinction based on a relatively trivial difference between NPB and the LMB (i.e. the amount of time signed players remain under their club's control), while overlooking a much more important structural similarity (both leagues sell players to MLB, and in neither league is a team affiliated with a specific MLB franchise). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be because the NPB is not a US minor league, which the Mexican League, in essence, is. -Dewelar (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Banuelos didn't play in league games because at that time, he wasn't good enough - during his time in Mexico, his fastball topped out at 86 MPH. Hardly surprising, given that he was seventeen years old (i.e. with the physical development of a high school junior), and would have been playing against full-grown men. He did, however, spend "several months" working with his LMB team (as per this article). Heredia spent even more time with his LMB club (Veracruz). He signed with them on January 1, 2010, and remained with them until August 19 (Link). Both were seen as prospects by their signing teams, to develop for a time and then either sell to another team at a profit or to use in their own organization once they had matured enough.-Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing that suggests Banuelos ever played in the LMB. Heredia's case appears slightly different, in that according to the article Heredia seems to have pitched minimally at best so as not to overwork him and diminish his value to MLB teams. There are no stats for either player on the BBRef minor league database, and given the nebulous nature of the Heredia article there seems to be no real evidence that he pitched in the LMB either. Both players seem to have been signed by the LMB specifically with the end goal of selling them to MLB, which is not the case with any player in NPB of which I'm aware. -Dewelar (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That "convoluted method" is, however, the only formal contact between MLB clubs and LMB ones (except the sale or loan of an unwanted MLB player to a LMB club, which also happens from time to time). Which places it on an entirely different footing than all clubs in the US minors, who have a formal affiliation with one particular MLB club and are supplied with (or relieved of) players exclusively by that one MLB club. That subordinate status of US minor league clubs is what the guideline was written to emphasize, and it's simply not present for LMB clubs. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, then it has no effect on my vote whatsoever. Essentially, it's a convoluted method for MLB to subsidize the LMB -- Banuelos was only a member of Los Sultanes on paper so that LMB could get its payoff. That might even lower its status in my opinion. -Dewelar (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you check, you'll see that all Mexican nationals signing with a MLB club technically first sign with a LMB club, who then sells their contract (and rights) to the MLB club that wants them. Banuelos, for example, signed with the Sultanes de Monterrey before his rights were transferred to the Yankees (as per this NYT link). 75% of the player's MLB signing bonus goes to the player's Mexican club, and the remaining 25% goes to the player (see this article about the Pittsburgh Pirates' signing of Luis Heredia). That agreement is the whole reason behind the LMB's loose association with MLB in the first place. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good point. For every LMB veteran to jump to MLB (like an Alfredo Aceves), there are many more Mexican teenagers who sign without playing any LMB ball (like Manny Banuelos). I'm increasingly seeing LMB as no longer meeting criteria of a "top-level" league, regardless of country. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This makes a certain degree of sense, although there's a further piece to my thinking: I may be mistaken on this, but I am under the impression that MLB teams tend to sign the top Mexican players before they get to the LMB in the same way they do players from the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, which is also untrue of the NPB/CPBL/KBO. If that's not correct then that would change my position to a degree. Either way, I think it would probably be worthwhile to get an idea of where consensus is at on the matter right now -- for instance, at this point, consensus seems to be that while CPBL players are notable, the Italian and Israeli Leagues are not, a position with which I have not been given reason to disagree, but might not be where you or someone else stands. -Dewelar (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The language about "top-level leagues" was only inserted to prevent players from short-season leagues (i.e. winter-league teams) or foreign minor leagues (like the scout teams for NPB clubs) from being considered inherently notable, as those clubs are roughly analogous to the US affiliated minors. If you find the wording to be unclear, the guideline should probably be updated to reflect the intended meaning. I can assure you that nobody intended to exclude the Mexican League based on the sort of convoluted logic that you're applying - the Mexican League is one of the three highest-caliber foreign leagues in existence, along with Japan and Cuba. It'd be totally crazy to include Italian or Taiwanese or Israeli teams that are of a much lower quality, relatively speaking, while crossing out the Mexican League. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first statement you made here is dependent on your definition of top-level. If a league recognizes another league as being of a higher level (which NPB, CPBL, etc., do not, but LMB does), and indeed considers itself a minor league, is it really "top-level"? I would argue that it is not. Note that the guideline does not say "highest level within the country" -- it says "top-level", which is more vague. (On a side note, "well-established" is also vague -- should the IBL qualify, as it's apparently been around for 60+ years?) As for the second statement, I have said previously that I would probably support pre-MLB agreement era Mexican League for notability (I implied it above as well, but it really doesn't pertain to Rojas). The rest of the second statement follows directly from the first statement. -Dewelar (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. A question for you: so what? Baseball is an international game. The best players go to MLB or the top Asian leagues. They don't stay in Mexico. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than continue this discussion here, I have opened up a discussion at the sports notability talk page to get clarification on the consensus on the matter. -Dewelar (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Rojas pitched in the Mexican League, which is a top-level national league, and thus meets the requirements of the applicable notability guideline. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep – Going against my own gut instinct on this one. I don't really believe that the Mexican League should be considered as bestowing notability on all who play in it, but WP:NSPORTS does imply that that is the case. This likely isn't the only case where it's questionable if a league called "top-level" really is. However, a guideline means more than my personal opinion, and it appears to meet the present wording of said guideline. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember there being a similar case when I nominated Jake Blalock for deletion, because he flailed in the minor leagues here and then signed on to play in Italy. It's a league with no particular notability, although there is no "higher" league there. Anywho, remember that we're allowed to ignore all rules. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No particular notability in the US, perhaps, but that's not necessarily the case within Italy itself. The Italian national team is one of the strongest in Europe. They won the European championships in 2010 (for the ninth time), and are typically qualifying participants in major international competitions like the World Baseball Classic, the Baseball World Cup, and the Olympics (when baseball was an Olympic sport). Most (though not all, admittedly) of the players on the Italian national team are taken from the rosters of the IBL. As such, I would argue that they are notable within the context of Italian athletics, and deserving of coverage in the interest of countering systemic bias within Wikipedia. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember there being a similar case when I nominated Jake Blalock for deletion, because he flailed in the minor leagues here and then signed on to play in Italy. It's a league with no particular notability, although there is no "higher" league there. Anywho, remember that we're allowed to ignore all rules. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've changed my mind. LMB as it presently is is recognized as a minor league with a working agreement with MLB, and is therefore not the "top-level" of competition. Even though it's the "top-level" in Mexico, I'll use Wikipedia:Ignore all rules as my justification for going against the baseball notability guideline. I see no reason he should meet criteria for inclusion here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to revise your !vote, as you are apparently operating under a mistaken impression as to how MLB signings of Mexican players work - see my comment regarding this upthread. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read over your discussion up thread with Dewelar on this, considered all that you said, and I will retain my vote as delete. Even if a player like Banuelos was technically property of LMB for a time, it sounds like a bookkeeping strategy that serves some purpose for LMB. All I see is Banuelos not playing in LMB because he was recognized as a hot enough prospect to be signed by an MLB team as a teenager. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On top of that, I forgot that Alfredo Aceves signed as a free agent with the Blue Jays as an amateur free agent. He only went to LMB when he decided he didn't like playing in the DSL and the Jays released him so he could go home. He was no prized prospect at the time, like a Banuelos. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Banuelos wasn't a prized prospect at the time, either. The Yankees paid only $450k for a batch of players that included both Banuelos and Aceves. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that makes my point about the current insignificance of LMB even stronger. Banuelos wasn't regarded as highly as teenagers that get multimillion dollar bonuses, and yet he still bypassed the "top-level" league within the legal boundaries that constitute Mexico. LMB serves as a hybrid of an independent minor league and a Triple-A league. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At the same time, there are numerous MLB-caliber players who DO play in LMB before being sold to a MLB club. See my (not-particularly-exhaustive) list above. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that makes my point about the current insignificance of LMB even stronger. Banuelos wasn't regarded as highly as teenagers that get multimillion dollar bonuses, and yet he still bypassed the "top-level" league within the legal boundaries that constitute Mexico. LMB serves as a hybrid of an independent minor league and a Triple-A league. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Banuelos wasn't a prized prospect at the time, either. The Yankees paid only $450k for a batch of players that included both Banuelos and Aceves. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On top of that, I forgot that Alfredo Aceves signed as a free agent with the Blue Jays as an amateur free agent. He only went to LMB when he decided he didn't like playing in the DSL and the Jays released him so he could go home. He was no prized prospect at the time, like a Banuelos. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read over your discussion up thread with Dewelar on this, considered all that you said, and I will retain my vote as delete. Even if a player like Banuelos was technically property of LMB for a time, it sounds like a bookkeeping strategy that serves some purpose for LMB. All I see is Banuelos not playing in LMB because he was recognized as a hot enough prospect to be signed by an MLB team as a teenager. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I tend to agree with HBWS here about the notability of los jugadores de LMB. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The full criteria being used states (emphasis added) "Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, Chinese Professional Baseball League or any other top-level national league (active or defunct)." By being a AAA-level minor league, the Mexican League is not a major league as REQUIRED for the presumption of notability. Thus, the article should be deleted since notability does not appear to be otherwise established. RonSigPi (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2011 (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.