Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelley Gulledge

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 August 4.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Wizardman 06:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems people want an explanation of this close, so I'll provide one. While there were 7 deletes to 6 keeps, that doesn't matter in and of itself, but rather, what matters is what those comments said. The keepists were saying that AAA-level ball seems to automatically establish notability (there has never been consensus for that) and that an all-star appearance is notable as well. The delete arguments stated that the person is not notable despite the AAA appearance. At this point it may seem like a no consensus close, however, BRMo's comment effectively explains why the keep arguments don't hold water. The all-star teams were of an unaffiliated league, which takes away the notability that the keep arguments were explaining. Note that after BRMo's rationale, the only "votes" that followed were to delete, which seemed to show that others came to the same conclusion, that the delete argument trumped the keep one in this instance. Wizardman 20:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelley Gulledge[edit]

Delete. Another career minor-league baseball player. Now in 9th (or 8th if you don't count the year he apparently took off) year across three different organizations, not including some independent league activity. He's finally made the AAA level but is apparently 0-for-18 so far this year. Fails the sensible parts of WP:WPBB#Players. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NDelete - fails WP:ATHLETE.--S_RX 14:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays AAA baseball and has appeared on minor league all-star teams. Spanneraol (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could go either way here. He's made three different indy-league All-Star teams, and Baseball America has tagged him at least twice as one of the best indy-league players in the country. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the suggested notability guideline at WP:BASEBALL. Townlake (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Contrary to widespread belief, the "competitors who have competed in a fully professional league" clause of WP:ATHLETE does not pertain solely to the major leagues. This fellow's been an all-star in three separate leagues? I'd advise nom to reread WP:WPBB#Players, because that holds that someone playing in a minor league all-star game is notable. RGTraynor 17:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This player was a minor league all-star and triple A player. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep You nominated several baseball players under Wikipedia:WPBB#Players, yet you've proven that you didn't even read it once again.

From Wikipedia:WPBB#Players

Have played in at least a whole season in AAA baseball, played in the All-Star Futures Game, won a notable Minor League Baseball award, or been selected for any minor league baseball All-star game in the affiliated minor leagues.

Please stop this, or at the very least, read before you nominate. SashaNein (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, calm down. All of the pro-minor league folks have had a chance now. Let's see what the rest of the world thinks. And I clarified my nom. a bit. I'll have a run at changing the sillier parts of that guideline soon, esp. since it now seems that it was assembled by two or three folks heavily biased to one side, one of whom was a sock of a banned user. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it meets WP:ATHLETE as it stands. However, there has been some fairly detailed discussion about changing WP:ATHLETE so that minor league types don't get notability. I view doing well in the minor leagues as the equivalent of getting "best calculus teacher in local college" -- not something we should put on Wikipedia. Notice that all of this guy's references come from baseball fan sites, none from more traditional reliable sources. If it weren't for the more heavily contested provisions of WP:ATHLETE, he'd fail WP:BIO by a mile. RayAYang (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that WP:ATHLETE is far too loose, and I applaud that several of the sports Wikiprojects are installing their own tighter criteria; heck, I'm the author of the WP:HOCKEY notability criteria. That being said, there's been discussion about tightening the criteria generally for years now, and it's never come anywhere near consensus. Until that happens, we can only advocate in AfD the extant black-letter policy and guideline. RGTraynor 20:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Fair enough. I suppose I'm putting down my objections here so that they reach a wider audience. And also so that people can't say "there's been no problem about the guideline in AfD" as a talking point. RayAYang (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bios in encyclopedia are intended for people that are widely accepted as the elite in their profession. This person is not a notable baseball player. There are thousands upon thousands of baseball players that have accomplished as much as him. If he is equal to thousands upon thousands of other players it doesn't make any sense for there to be an article about him in an encyclopedia. For those editors that won't accept an argument at an afd discussion that doesn't include wikilinked abbreviations here goes: Delete. No coverage in WP:RS, thus not meeting WP:BIO. WP:BB is a Wikiproject, thus any notability standard they come up with doesn't trump WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No coverage in WP:RS? Townlake (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Okay, received coverage. But WP:BIO requires "significant coverage", and its not considered "significant coverage" if the guy has never received any coverage outside of the sports sections of the Dallas Morning News. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News articles cause it to meet the letter of WP:N and all-star status probably meets any reasonable standard of notability. Hobit (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Several editors have recommended keeping the article based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Players, citing his appearance on All-Star teams. However, the WikiProject's criterion is that a player has "been selected for any minor league baseball All-star game in the affiliated minor leagues." The article notes that Gulledge was selected twice for the Northern League All-Star team, but the Northern League is unaffiliated. I don't see any evidence that Gulledge has ever been selected for an all-star team in an affiliated league, per the WikiProject notability criterion. BRMo (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Not quite. It says that he was named to the 2007 independent leagues second all star team, a whole 'nuther barrel of fish. Being named to play in an all-star game is modestly notable many places, but about thirty guys a side in baseball get that much. To be named to the top 18 players in all the independent leagues combined, that's a fair bit more. RGTraynor 23:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, (a) the criterion doesn't mention being selected to "second teams," and (b) the league he was playing in, the American Association of Independent Professional Baseball, and the independent leagues as a whole are not affiliated, and therefore his selection does not satisfy the WikiProject criterion. Very few players from independent leagues ever make it to the majors. BRMo (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contrary to several comments above, I don't see any evidence that he meets the criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Players. He was named to all-star teams of an unaffiliated league, whereas the WikiProject specifies all-star teams of affiliated leagues. (I think even that's too low a standard—I don't think that being named to an all-star team for an affiliated rookie or short-season league signifies "historical notability.") I've looked at the Google News search cited by Townlake above; unfortunately, I can't read many of the articles because they require an access fee. But it appears that many of the articles are about his high school career and that others involve trivial coverage (such as coverage of individual games). Gulledge has led an interesting minor league career and it's nice to see that he's finally made it to Class AAA at the age of 29. If he sticks there for a full season, as specified by the WikiProject's criteria, I'll be happy to endorse re-creation of the article. But as of now, I don't think he's quite crossed the threshold of notability. BRMo (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a well-reasoned analysis - except for the curious jab at the Baseball Project's notability compromise, which only serves to re-highlight concerns about the pointy-ness of the original nomination. Townlake (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's nothing wrong with talking "pointy" jabs at the Projects's notability standard, especially when the projects standard is ridiculous. The projects standard is obviously not followed by the mainstream of WIkipedia editors. In all of these minor leaguer afd's its the same few editors that just repeat the same mantra, "keep per wp:baseball", and ignore all other reasonable arguments to the contrary. And there's a greater over-all concern about this terrible notability standard. When it comes to other projects great leeway and respect is given to the projects notability standard. The lack of respect given to the baseball standard will lead to the questioning of all other project notability standards. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well and good, but if the standard is really that bad, isn't the answer to work through WP:BASEBALL to improve the standard rather than just running to AfD? Why have project notability compromises at all if people will just use AfD to gut the compromises rather than addressing the project directly about concerns? Townlake (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is the ideal. But if the majority at the project are intransigently opposing any sort of conformity with the parent WP:BIO, as evidenced by this afd, the only solution is to go outside the project to gain a more reasonable policy-based consensus. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You keep citing WP:BIO, here and elsewhere, as though it was a tighter guideline than the project's criteria. In fact, it is looser. To quote from WP:BIO: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... ATHLETES: Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis ..." There is no qualification as to how many games one needs to have played, or that a "fully professional" league needs to be a "major" one. Beyond that, if your argument is boiled down to fundamentals, your belief that the project's criteria are "ridiculous" come down to nothing more than you don't think minor league players are notable. Quite aside from that being an argument based in personal preference, do you carry that to other biographical areas on Wikipedia? Why should a provincial parliamentarian from the Yukon Territory, for instance, get a free pass, despite WP:BIO's unambiguous language ... surely they are "minor league" politicians, one would think? Or a musician who sells 3,000 records in Ecuador, Peru or Paraguay, thus hitting those countries' standards for gold records? Sorry, Townlake is right. There is another solution beyond sidestepping the project. It is to accept that the project has arrived at a consensus and to either accept it or work to persuade people otherwise, rather than go forum shopping. RGTraynor 05:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BRMo's excellent research and analysis. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BRMo. - Masonpatriot (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2008 (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.