Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvin Medlock


 * 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.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Calvin Medlock

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. He hasn't played since 2009 and never reached the highest level of professional baseball competition in the United States. Alex (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  —Alex (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 *  Comment Keep--He has over 500 articles, and appears have played in the Mexican League subsequent to 2009, though he also appears to have been an assistant coach in college. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Epeelfeche.... Alex do you spend your days combing through articles looking for things to nominate for deletion? Spanneraol (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As he would say, please comment on the article, not the inconvenient truth that spams the WP:BASEBALL list of articles for deletion numerous times each week.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 15:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I only nominate three articles every seven to 10 days... Alex (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Epeelfeche. I think he's done enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. [[User:Vodello| Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 15:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Epeelfeche. Rlendog (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as the article states he played in the Mexican Pacific League, which is their WINTER league and not the Mexican League (baseball) y'all are thinking of. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true (as to the article), but his personal coverage in the 500 articles, in aggregate, convince me that he passes GNG, coupled with the other aspects of his career that are delineated in them, including his performance and awards.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, seems like people are keeping to make a WP:POINT, not because the articles are actually worthy of keeping. If you notice the articles that appear with his name in the Google News Archive, you will see that the vast majority of them fall under WP:ROUTINE, with headlines like "Saturday: Biscuits 3, Diamond Jaxx 2". It should also be noted that a large number of the articles mention Medlock only in passing, with another player or subject as their main focus. Alex (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You misread what I wrote. I did not refer only to how many articles mention him.  Rather, I referred to "his personal coverage in the 500 articles".  Some of course are passing in nature.  Others are not.  As I wrote above, "his personal coverage in the 500 articles, in aggregate, convince me that he passes GNG, coupled with the other aspects of his career that are delineated in them, including his performance and awards."  I'm not sure how to be more clear.  You are free of course to have a different view.  But perhaps it would be best not to mis-characterize what I (and other editors) are saying.  At this point five of the seven who have responded to your nomination have viewed the coverage as sufficient for a keep.  Its possible that they are not all "making a POINT".--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that this is a discussion and not a vote. Consensus has yet to identify and demonstrate that multiple sources go beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. —Bagumba (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes -- in this discussion the commentators have overwhelmingly "commented" in favor of keeping the article. We gauge consensus, of course, on the basis of comments by commentators.  As consensus says:  "Consensus ... Ideally ... arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken."  As I point out -- the overwhelming consensus at this point is to keep.  I'm not sure how you personally are gauging consensus, and if that involves ignoring the comments made by editors, but just because you have one personal view doesn't alter the facts when the editors have expressed a strong contrary view.  Which is the case here.  To this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CONS, "Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles." —Bagumba (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's all true. And the consensus, as reflected by the majority comments (see above), is as I reflected to this point; we can await a closer's comments, as well as further comments by editors, to see if that is the case at the close of this AfD.  It's not some sort of alchemy, which ignores the views of the majority of the editors here  -- what our fellow editors say, as a majority, does impact the view as to what the consensus is ... per wp's definition.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No specific articles have been uncovered to support your claims. Alex (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority of editors who have commented so far seem to disagree with you. Plus -- 2004 Midwest League All Star, 2005 Cincinnati Reds Minor League Pitcher of the Year, and 2007 Southern League All Star (mid-season) all support what I said above.  But let's allow a closer to construe consensus.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All I am asking is that you back up your claim that not all the articles refer to Medlcok in passing or in a WP:ROUTINE manner by posting 3 or 4 that talk about him at least somewhat in depth. Alex (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Career minor league player fails WP:BASEBALL/N by never having played in major leagues. WP:NSPORTS also does not automatically view assistant college coaches as notable. Fails WP:GNG by lacking the requirement of significant coverage; the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and not detailed and WP:GOOGLEHITS discourages decisions based on the number of hits without examining the sources.  This is WP:Run-of-the-mill player not deserving of a standalone article. —Bagumba (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Epeelfeche as he appears to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree about WP:GNG, as it requires significant coverage and states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." WP:NSPORTS refers to this as WP:ROUTINE coverage that cannot be counted for purposes of notability.  I'm willing to reconsider if anoyone can point out multiple sources of non-trivial coverage that I have overlooked. —Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.