Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvin Medlock (2nd 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Calvin Medlock
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable per WP:BASEBALL/N. Career minor leaguer.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texasl-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)  ...William 15:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable with multiple AfDs. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what "multiple AfDs" has to do with his notability or whether the article should be deleted, other than the fact that the previous AfD resulted in a consensus to keep. Rlendog (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant that it has multiple requests for deletion, and also does zero to help your case as AFD 1 ended with a verdict of Keep. Your other point is WP:JNN and fails to elaborate in the least on WHY you think the subject is not-notable. Was it because the article was kept in the first AFD?  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 20:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Adequate coverage to meet WP:GNG and meets WP:BASEBALL/N by virtue of playing in the Venezuelan Professional Baseball League. Not sure why the nomination claims he does not meet WP:BASEBALL/N as being a career minor leaguer in the US does disqualify a player from meeting WP:BASEBALL/N in some other manner, and does certainly does not preclude a player from meeting WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't consider playing in winter leagues as meeting BASE/N, even if it is the highest level of competition in the country. Do we? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't see it as such, in the end most winter leagues aren't really fully professional. Secret account 04:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's correct - winter leagues generally aren't considered national leagues for the purposes of the guideline. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * BASE/N needs to be clarified to specify that the winter leagues don't count. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that interpretation is correct. Players in the top Venezuela league will get significant coverage in Venezuelan sources, regardless of the quality of play relative to the US, and the guideline makes no such limitation.  Really, no international league outside the US is of the same quality of the US Major Leagues.  Although there seems to be a discussion at the sports notability talk page right now. Rlendog (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Just as in the previous AFD that ended in a result of Keep, I still believe the subject has met general notability guidelines and trumps the currently neutered and broken WP:BASE/N, as I stated in AFD #1.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 20:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Vodello, while I agree with your assertion about GNG being the final determinant of notability, regardless of whether a subject satisfies a particular specific notability guideline (e.g., WP:NBASEBALL), I'm still not seeing any great depth of quality coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources per WP:RS. Could you provide three or four links to what you consider quality coverage of the subject?  What I'm looking at looks mostly like routine game and transactions coverage . . . .  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a borderline case, as there is some coverage, but I believe that it falls short of meeting GNG. Much of the coverage that does exist relates to his role in the trade for Jorge Cantú, which focuses on Cantú, and doesn't explore Medlock in great depth. There may be some coverage in Venezuela, but I'm not convinced it's enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I agree with Muboshgu that this is a borderline case, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with him in my !vote. The coverage we have I think does pass WP:GNG albeit weakly. There is coverage from multiple, reliable, third-party sources, therefore I'm going to have to !vote keep. Go   Phightins  !  21:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. While there is coverage, most of it is not independent (he works for Texas Southern, OurSports Central articles are press releases issued by his team) not secondary sources (stat sites are considered primary) or routine coverage of game summaries or team transactions. Without secondary sources that provide analysis of his performance over weeks or a season or a career, this article can never be more than a repository of stats and transactions. I only found this one article (on Highbeam) that I would consider significant coverage by a reliable, independent, secondary source. Willing to reconsider if others can identify specific sources to satisfy GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bagumba, no evidence of ever meeting GNG outside routine coverage, and I don't believe that winter leagues are the "highest-level" of a country that is discussed in WP:ATHLETE. Secret account 05:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not seem to be enough coverage to justify keeping this one. Spanneraol (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete My search did not lead me to believe the subject is notable.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 22:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, but I have found none of the depth of coverage in independent reliable sources mentioned by others above, and when queried, those same supporters have not produced links.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2012 (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.