Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Matthews (baseball)

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 delete. So Why 17:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Matthews (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. PROD declined with no reason given. Sources not presented to establish WP:GNG. Doesn't pass WP:BASE/N or any other project guideline either. Alex, I don't know why you insist on copying these articles from BR Bullpen here, but you need to stop. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It might not be online, but there's no way a guy who played ~15 years of professional baseball didn't generate enough media coverage to pass GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:BURDEN for demonstrating that is on the article creator, not us. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral at this point. If Matthews had reached the top minor leagues during this period (i.e., 16 team major leagues, no major league teams west or south of St. Louis), I would fully expect that someone with his credentials would have received enough coverage to meet WP:N, even if it was not available online. As it is, I still suspect that in 15 years and 300 homers, including some time in the AA/A1 leagues, he likely did get enough coverage, but I am not as confident. So if I get a chance I will see if newspapers.com has anything to sway my opinion (with the caveat that RL issues leave me less time for wikipedia than usual lately, and his name being relatively common may make it difficult to sort through false positives). That said, if this is actually copied from BR bullpen without proper attribution, then it may well run afoul our copyright policy. Rlendog (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I think this is a copyright violation. This does appear to have been copied from BR Bullpen. And while Alex was the primary author of that BR Bullpen article (1) I am not sure that is relevant to the copyright issues involved and (2) there was at least one other contributor to the BR Bullpen article whose work was copied. Although the BR Bullpen article is available freely under a GNU license, I don't think that is compatible with our CC-BY-SA license after 2009. Since this is arcane and complicated, I may have the rules wrong and so I will not speedy delete it myself, and if my interpretation is incorrect then I go back to my original neutral position. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the details, but somebody once told me that BR Bullpen is no longer the same public domain as Wikipedia, and therefore you can't copy from there to here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds familiar. The official Wikipedia policy is here, especially in the section WP:COPY#Additional availability of text under the GNU Free Documentation License. Rlendog (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm sympathetic to Bbny-wiki-editor's argument, having a sharp and longstanding disagreement with the bulk of the baseball editors on the premise that someone can play an inning for MLB and be presumptively notable, where someone who plays a thousand games in a major metropolitan area isn't as long as it's a minor-league city. But that being said, the GNG isn't satisfied by asserting that sources might exist. It's only satisfied by demonstrating that they do exist. That hasn't happened here. Ravenswing 17:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with Tex Sanner, Matthews peaked at Double-A ball. His claim to fame of hitting 50 home runs in a season was at Class-C ball, which is damn near semi-pro level. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 09:46, 14 August 2017 (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.