Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbie Widlansky (3rd nomination)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Widlansky[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. Previous afd was kept because of his play in the Australian Baseball league, which no longer satisfies notability requirements since the guidelines were changed. Spanneraol (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Spanneraol, perhaps you could explain in a bit more detail for us non-baseball people. Are you saying that playing in the Australian Baseball League was previous considered to be competition at a high enough level for inclusion but no longer is? Accepting that he was previously notable but now isn't might give some people WP:NOTTEMP concerns. But if the guidelines have changed and the inclusion criteria no longer gives the subject an "automatic pass" then the subject now needs to be judged on WP:GNG instead, which he likely fails. Have I got all that right? Stalwart111 21:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Stalwart, the guidelines changed and he no longer gets an automatic pass for playing in the ABL. Spanneraol (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Admittedly the article didn't reflect them at the time of nomination. But simply looking at the refs added just now, there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and the article is therefore presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article per wp:GNG.Epeefleche (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this would have been a delete when nominated but I now think Epeefleche has brought it up to a keep. The additional references appear to be enough to find notability for a stand-alone article. The player has some college and minor league achievements, although I realize statistics alone are not enough to find notability. Not only does there seem to be sufficient independent, reliable coverage of the player but I note the addition of his playing for a national team (Israel) in the World Baseball Classic. Though the team only played in a qualifying round, there is no distinction according to how far a team progresses in the specific discussion of baseball player notability. Donner60 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The qualifying rounds are just that.. they are to help a team qualify for the tournament they arent actually the tournament itself. Spanneraol (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - We've never discussed whether or not players in the WBC qualifying rounds count towards "highest level of international competition". Part of me wants to say that yes, they do, since the qualifiers are part of the tournament, just an earlier phase. But as I said, we don't have a consensus on that one way or the other and I could be swayed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note The WBC has 16 teams. By definition, teams that failed to qualify didn't play in the WBC. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at the moment. This one is on the borderline. Many of those sources appear superficially related to Widlansky on the surface. I'll decide later. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A number of the sources are devoted entirely to him or largely to him.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A long list of references has been added, but with the exception of a one-sentence mention in the Baltimore Sun, none of them rise above the routine local coverage that just about any amateur or minor league player receives. If a list of references like that is enough to meet GNG, then every minor leaguer and high school all-star would be notable. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of articles devoted entirely to him. Or largely to him. In what are clearly RSs. Different RSs, from different parts of the country. They go far beyond "one sentence mentions," though of course he has those as well, in media in the US and abroad (his coverage is not limited to one town, or even one country). We are speaking of GNG specifically -- this meets the GNG requirement that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." That concept is expanded upon in wp:GNG, and I see nothing there to indicate that these articles devoted to him or largely to him in RSs fail in any manner whatsoever.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - With the exception of a one-sentence mention in the Baltimore Sun, the coverage of the subject is all in small-town outlets or associated outlets (MiLB.com). We might as well just skip all of these AfD debates and say that anyone who has played MiLB since around 1980 is notable, since 100% of MiLB players get mentioned in game articles, transactions, and notes. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Epeefleche. Has adequate coverage to meet WP:GNG. I also view the qualifying rounds of the WBC as adequate in its own right. Rlendog (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You think anyone who played for a WBC qualifier team is now presumed notable? That's ridiculous. By definition, a qualifier is NOT part of the WBC. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely clear on this. It's murky. For one thing, it appears that the qualifier games play by WBC Tournament rules--not MLB or other rules--and that to qualify for a qualifier team, you have to meet WBC qualification rules. Murky.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "murky" at all. Olympic qualifiers use Olympic rules. Do you think anyone who tries out for the Olympics should now be granted automatic notability? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic try-outs are not run by the Olympic Committee, on Olympic rules. The WBC qualifiers are run by WBC, on WBC rules. To me, it's murky.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a distinction without a difference. The baseball guidelines mention playing in the WBC. A person that played in a WBC qualifier didn't "play in the WBC" any more than a person who participated in an Olympic qualifier but failed to qualify "played in the Olympics." - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am satisfied the refernences supplied by epeefleche satisfy the GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess "significant coverage" doesn't mean what it used to mean. Any decent amateur or minor league player, including some Little Leaguers, receives the type of coverage listed on this article. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have 211 edits to your name (4 of them at this AfD), so unless this is not your only account I'm not sure what your basis is for referring to what significant coverage "used to mean." Anyway, GNG describes what is meant by significant coverage, and in our view this meets the GNG test -- that, not whether someone else would qualify whom you would like to see not qualify -- is the test. He has articles devoted to him, and articles largely devoted to him (in addition to the smaller passing references), and they are from papers all around the country, and that's why he meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of edits I have is irrelevant. That's just an ad hominem to distract from the point I made. As I said earlier, any decent high school player gets the same amount of coverage that Widlansky appears to have gotten when he played in the minors. I'm sure the Pulaski paper is full of articles about local sports stars. Are they notable, too? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Players that satisfy GNG are notable. Irrespective of anything else. You keep on pointing to the "anything else" -- but that is not what GNG focuses on.

Note No, I'm not pointing to "anything else," whatever that's supposed to mean. I'm saying that a one-sentence mention in the Baltimore Sun, plus a few stories and notes in small-town papers like the Pulaski Times, doesn't come close to meeting the "significant coverage" standard of GNG. By your standard, and by those of some other AfD regulars, the best players on every high school baseball, basketball, and football teams would pass GNG, since local papers are always writing about local sports stars. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That's what GNG calls for. Plus, the sources are a number of papers, from many different cities, for a player who has played in different cities both in the minor leagues, in Australia, and representing Israel -- I don't see a GNG concern, though I gather you would like GNG to not accept RSs from cities smaller than Baltimore. That's not what GNG says.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say it's "significant" and I say it's not. There's nothing really "significant" about a minor leaguer being mentioned in that team's local paper, or at MiLB.com, which is essentially a promotional arm of Minor League Baseball on which every single MiLB player gets a bio and gets mentioned. Personally, I don't care if we keep this page or not. I just think AfDs like this are a dumb waste of time, since it's indisputable that every minor league player gets mentioned in local newspapers and at MiLB.com. There's little rhyme or reason to which pages are kept and which are deleted. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note Just to show how inconsistent these AfDs have become, Adam Morrissey's page is also being considered for deletion right now. Morrissey played 10 years of pro baseball, including parts of 4 seasons in Triple A, while Robbie Widlansky (this AfD) played only 7 years of pro ball and parts of two in Triple A. Morrissey's AfD is now 4-0 in favor of deletion, with not even a peep of objection, while Widlansky's page is 4-2 in favor of keeping. It seems highly unlikely that Morrissey, who had a longer career at a higher level, received less coverage than Widlansky. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to leave this as my last comment to you on the subject. You keep on focusing on things other than GNG -- which is all that is important in a GNG discussion. It matters not who played more years in Triple A, etc. -- all the wholly irrelevant things you keep on pointing to (though I will note that this subject played in Australia as well, and on a national team as well, and received international coverage ... while the other fellow's article and AfD reflect a stark absence of GNG coverage). What matters is GNG coverage. If he played punchball, but achieved GNG coverage for it, we would cover him.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're being deliberately obtuse. GNG is exactly what I've been talking about. A couple stories in a small-town paper like the Pulaski Times (or whatever it's called), plus ONE SENTENCE in the Baltimore Sun, plus routine coverage at PR outlets like MiLB.com, isn't "significant coverage." I'm sure every person on the Pulaski town council has been featured in the Pulaski paper. Are they all notable, too? What about the stars of the Pulaski High School football and basketball teams? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche, it is poor form to edit your own comments after someone has responded to them. Distorts the record. Spanneraol (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2014 (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.