Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kinston baseball people

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kinston baseball people[edit]

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

We have categories for players of teams. I don't see why we need a page. This page doesn't lay out any particular reason why people associated with minor league baseball teams from Kinston, North Carolina meets WP:GNG. Muboshgu (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although we do have categories for the players, this serves the purpose as an "All time roster". This just groups all of the player from the teams that have been in Kinston, North Carolina. I think that it does meet WP:GNG per sourcing and the fact that it is Kinston, North Carolina doesn't really matter. Be it Kinston or New York, we shouldn't have a bias. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mainly seems to be of local interest, but I don't know of any policy that says we shouldn't have a list on this topic. It is clearly defined. Borock (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any General notability guideline that it doesn't meet. Could you be more specific as to which particular guideline isn't being met? It is well sourced with multiple independent reliable sources including books from varied publishers. If the decision is ultimately to delete, I would ask that the lists be re-merged on the Kinston Indians page which is where they originally came from. They were removed from that page due to the large size of the article. Thanks. Kinston eagle (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing wrong with having both lists and categories. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:08, 21 July 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.