Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis D'Arnaud

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 merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Travis D'Arnaud[edit]

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

Re-created page that was deleted before. Also, no provided sources that specifically assert the notability of this player. There are many reliable sources that currently mention him, but they are all referencing a trade of big-name players in which this minor leaguer that doesn't pass the notability guideline was involved. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some informaton. And the article is ot all about him being traded. it is mentioned. i'll say keep BlueJaysFan32 (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The additional source provided is not enough to establish notability, as it's not significant independent coverage in a reliable source. The other source, which I removed, was a blog, which is unreliable. As a note, the above editor is the creator of this article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rules for notability with an athlete is that he plays at least 1 professional game. Has he done this? Kingjeff (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:ATHLETE says. "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" are considered notable. The Baseball WikiProject generally considers the top leagues (Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, and the like) to be "fully professional". While minor league baseball players are "professional" (meaning that they are paid), they are not considered to be fully professional. D'Arnaud has not played above Single-A. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it means the same thing. Playing at least 1 professional game means he has competed at the fully professional level of a sport. And I would say Minor leagues would count since it meets the definition of my above statement. Kingjeff (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is in contravention of previously established consensus. The vast majority of minor leaguers are not considered notable because the minor leaguers are not fully professional and have not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This is the reason that the lists of minor league baseball players exist (see Philadelphia Phillies minor league players and the other like articles). See User talk:Gjr rodriguez for a large list of similar players who also did not meet WP:N or WP:ATH under the guideline of "fully professional". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they are considered fully professional players. Kingjeff (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BASE/N, they are not. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASE/N does not and can not overrule WP:ATHLETE. Fully professional is any league where a player is paid to play and does not have to pay to play like they would in semi-pro. That beings said I have no problem with minor baseball players being deleted cause there are jsut so many who never go anywhere unlike other sports. -DJSasso (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Djsasso, I never said that BASE/N overrules ATHLETE. Please do not put words in my mouth. BASE/N is the Baseball WikiProject's interpretation of "fully professional" for the purpose of a sport where the minor league system is far-reaching. Simply being a minor league player, coach, or umpire does not confer notability. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you inferred it in how you stated that. So I am not putting words in your mouth. You just need to be more careful with how you say things if you don't want them interpreted other than how you intend them. You also above pointed to a list of players whom you say did not meet WP:ATH which was not true, what they did not meet was WP:BASE/N. So it seems you are confusing the two. WP:BASE/N is only an essay that one or more people may believe. -DJSasso (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, WP:ATHLETE doesn't replace the need for WP:N to be met. The simple case here is that WP:N is not met. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is the whole reason for WP:ATH. It's considered an exception to wp:n for players that are harder to get sources for because of the lack of records a long time ago. Don't get me wrong articles should still have more sources and I don't have a problem deleting this article because wp:athlete is too inclusive. But the whole purpose of athlete is to include these sorts of players which is why its such a highly debated guideline. -DJSasso (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although I completely disagree with you, that's why we have debate and discussion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you inferred that WP:BASE/N overrules WP:ATHLETE; why else would you have countered Kingjeff's citation of WP:ATHLETE with "Per WP:BASE/N, they are not?" Claiming otherwise is disingenuous. Now like many other editors, I really wish athletic notability standards were devolved from the inadequate and overly-loose standard of WP:ATHLETE. The fact of the matter is that they have not. However much we wish it to be the case, the various criteria - including the set I drafted myself for the hockey Wikiproject - are unofficial essays with no power to trump WP:ATHLETE; furthermore, your stance that meeting the criteria of WP:ATHLETE doesn't count somehow is wholly erroneous - WP:BIO is a notability guideline with no less force than WP:N, "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." There are certainly venues where you can attempt to change consensus (and I'll be right there on your side) but the fact of the matter is that out of the numerous attempts to change consensus concerning WP:ATHLETE, not one has yet succeeded. Make mine Keep. RGTraynor 02:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, watch the civility; there's no need to label other's arguments as "disingenuous." Having observed dozens of AFD discussions on articles about minor league baseball players, it's clear to me that there is no consensus on how WP:ATHLETE applies to minor leaguers; I've seen it used as an argument for deletion just about as often as an argument for keeping. Even though minor league players are paid a small amount, the minor leagues also acknowledge that their main purpose is to serve as a training and development program for Major League Baseball. Many editors do not think that this type of experience is sufficient to qualify as "fully professional." Given the lack of consensus on how to interpret WP:ATHLETE, the WP:BASE/N guideline (which reflects the consensus of the Baseball WikiProject) relies more heavily on WP:GNG to establish notability, BRMo (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just playing devils advocate here but, there seems to be a consensus across pretty much all sports (except baseball) that is "fully professional" means not "semi-pro" and the semi-pro article defines semi-pro as not playing as a full time job. I would be hard pressed not to call the minor leagues not a full time job. Even if they are considered training. But yes in such situations we should fall more on WP:GNG. But yes, many of these afds do end up delete cause the baseball project floods out and cries delete, when realistically (even if I dislike it and want the deleted) they should be kept because they do meet the letter of WP:ATHLETE. -DJSasso (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with the idea that members of the baseball wikiproject are the ones pushing deletion. In many cases, they tend to support merging these type of short articles on minor league players (see below). BRMo (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are definitely correct, I just consider the merge to be the same a delete in that a separate article no longer exists so I used delete when I should have said merge. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is no violation of civility to attack one's argument. That being said, I agree that members of the baseball Wikiproject have pushed hard the notion that minor leaguers should not count as "fully professional." I just don't agree that their POV is universally held, especially when there are sports - such as soccer, basketball and hockey - where minor league systems are longstanding and have players who've spent long careers playing in second tier leagues. I've said it before and will say it again: advocate devolving WP:ATHLETE to the projects, and I'll be right there. Until then, WP:ATHLETE is unambiguous, trumps any project notability essay, and AfDs aren't the venue to fight that. RGTraynor 09:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's definition of "disingenous" is "lacking in candor; giving a false appearance of simple frankness." Dictionary.com's is "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenous; insincere." Your use of this word is not just an attack on an argument; it is an attack on the motives or honesty of the person to whom it is directed. BRMo (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players (see WP:BASE/N for notability criteria for minor league baseball players). BRMo (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has competed at a professional level and has "competed at the fully professional level of a sport" Kingjeff (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players. If he never plays a major league game, he doesn't meet notability. It's WP:CRYSTAL to assume he ever will. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: According to the standard, he does. Kingjeff (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree with your interpretation of the standard. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Upon what basis do you disagree? Are you claiming that minor league baseball players are unpaid? RGTraynor 20:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Upon the basis that he's not in the most advanced level of professional baseball. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is not what WP:ATHLETE requires. It just requires that it be a league that is professional and does not contain amateurs. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It requires a league to be "fully professional", not just professional. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Right and fully professional means all the players of the league are pros and there are no amateurs. Its really a clear statement, it might not be as clear to baseball editors as I can't think of any baseball leagues that have a combination of pros and amateurs on the same team. However in a number of others sports there are leagues that are made up of both professionals and amateurs. This is why the word fully is used. -DJSasso (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That might be your interpretation, but that's not the way I see it, and I would venture that the majority of the editors in the baseball project (the ones who would be affected by this article's deletion or retention) would agree with me considering the multiple votes from project members to merge. My interpretation of "fully professional" (as always, my opinion) is not that players are paid, but that the league itself is fully professional, meaning that the league isn't involved in training or promoting players. I know that you work in the hockey project, so if I might venture offer an example from the hockey team I follow: What makes Bryan Helmer and Quintin Laing notable, but Greg Amadio and Andrew Joudrey aren't? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Having dug through discussions that is why they chose the word. Perhaps its a North American vs European thing as the sports and leagues that have his setup are mostly located there. The word fully was introduced to weed out the amateurs that play in the lower tier soccer leagues that people consider professional but don't contain only pros. That being said training has nothing to do with not being professional, you are trained in every job you do. Being trained doesn't make you any less of a professional. -DJSasso (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As for those players, nothing. The hockey project would create pages for and/or would vote keep on both of them since they are both permitted by WP:ATHLETE. We have our standards but they are just an essay, until wp:athlete is changed we respect that it contains the current consensus of the entire wiki and don't believe our project overrides it because we don't. -DJSasso (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        While I'll ignore your last remark, I would argue that, regardless of the standard's original intent, being "fully professional" necessitates that all portions of the definition of the words professional must be fulfilled. The Wiktionary definition of fully professional gives three meanings of the word. As a noun, a "professional" is: "A person who belongs to a profession", "A person who earns his living from a specified activity", and "An expert". While the first isn't under debate, and I won't argue that the second doesn't apply (though the salaries of minor league players vary), I don't believe that the third applies in this case, and that's where my argument lies. Reference.com also agrees that "expert" is one definition of professional. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        While we will agree to disagree I am sure, I have a hard time not accepting that someone who gets paid to play is not an expert. When you consider the thousands upon thousands who play amateur baseball. I would say if you are good enough to get paid, you are already an expert. The different levels of leagues are just people that are more expert than others. But I agree its probably a matter of perception. -DJSasso (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players. Alex (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But minor league baseball leagues are not an exclusively developmental leagues as your statement is saying. Just like lower professional soccer leagues in Europe, there are players of lesser quality that make up Minor League Baseball. Kingjeff (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are very few absolutes in this world. The fact remains that much more than a simple majority of players in Minor League Baseball are there for developmental reasons, whether they are young players who are going for their first chance at the bigs, veterans who are trying to get back, big-leaguers who are rehabilitating, and some who are attempting to make a comeback. All of these player roles can be classified as "developmental", whether it's the development and improvement of new skills, or developing new strength through physical rehab. Several published works, including this one (see page 11), note that the minor leagues are organized according to the level of players' skills. Each affiliated minor league club has a "player development contract" with a major league club (see pages 12 and 13), reinforcing that this is their purpose. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But none of that stops them from being completely professional. There isn't a job in the world where the training is ever done. Whether they are there for training or not doesn't change the fact that the leagues are completely professional. We don't stop calling a doctor a fully professional just because he has had to take some continuing education courses. To be honest if I was a minor leaguer I would be insulted if someone said I wasn't fully professional because I played in the minors. -DJSasso (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - But being offended is not what this is about. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right, its about being professional, which they are. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And now we are back to the same argument again, because it's about being fully professional. We're talking in circles here. I'm more than willing to agree to disagree. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:09, 24 December 2009 (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.