Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Ritter


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Charlie Ritter
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I have been able to verify that this guy existed in a table of baseball statistics in an old book. However he appears to have only played for two days and two games. He does not appear to meet the baseball notability criteria WP:NBASE and is not mentioned as a significant and notable player on Buffalo_Bisons_(National_League). In the very small chance that anyone finds something significant about a player who only played two games, it should surely appear there first. JMWt (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a SABR publication about Ritter, but I haven't been able to access it. If anyone knows how to navigate the SABR web site, the citation is: "Who was Mr. Ritter?", in Bill Carle, ed.: Biographical Research Committee Report, SABR, November/December, 2011, p. 4.


 * this is a single paragraph in a newsletter. The total context is as follows

"In 1885, a man named Ritter played two games at second base for Buffalo. We list this player as Charles Ritter. We have been able to locate a Charles Ritter from Buffalo who died in Florida in 1958. But was he the ballplayer? The late Joe Overfield, in his book 100 Seasons of Buffalo Baseball, left Ritter unidentified. If his name was indeed Charles, we have probably have found him, but my guess is that his first name was not listed. Can someone identify Mr. Ritter, our Mystery of the Month?"


 * I personally don't think this helps the case of "keep"! JMWt (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * These things are no longer unknown. Nemec's book was published a decade later and confirmed Ritter's identity, year of birth, year of death, and more. The ongoing research and publications IMO demonstrate that Ritter's significance is enduring. Cbl62 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This rather complete bio in a book, I'm assuming paper sources exist, probably in early newspapers. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's David Nemec's book. He is an authoritative source. Cbl62 (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also a single paragraph, asserting that the person existed and talking about his baseball statistics. How does that meet WP:NBASE? JMWt (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * NBASE is not the relevant standard; it is in the process of being repealed in its entirety. The relevant standard is WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * NBASE is pretty much useless, talking only about being in Cooperstown. GNG is probably a better measure to use. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't know that. How do a couple of newsletters - where the authors seem unsure even of the guy's name - meet the GNG? JMWt (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although his career was short, he played at the highest level of his sport -- the National League. Given that we are dealing with a 19th century figure, I believe there is sufficient coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline. In particular, eminent baseball historian David Nemec devotes 20 lines to Ritter in his book written over 100 years after Ritter's career ended. The obituary (now included in the article) and the SABR research piece also add to the notability calculus to some degree. Cbl62 (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Zero in-depth significant coverage. So far the keep voters have not made a policy based argument. We only have one quality source (Nemec's book); and even that is rather thin (not much to say; so I wouldn't call it in-depth coverage). One very tiny paragraph in one source does not match the standard of "multiple sources". WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid policy based argument. Produce them (a minimum of 3 in-depth independent sources), or we delete. Period.4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You should know that there is no "minimum of three in-depth sources". GNG requires multiple sources, which means that two is sufficient. Indeed, in some cases, one may be sufficient. The Nemec book (20 lines dedicated to Ritter by an eminent historian) is clearly one. The Buffalo newspaper obit also has some depth, and the SABR piece less so. But for an athlete who played 137 years ago, that's pretty darn good and GNG-satisfying in my book. Cbl62 (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep this person played in the National League and there is at least some WP:SIGCOV about him in an era where media coverage is not even close to the level it is today. Even if not a technical pass by the letter of GNG, this is a case in which WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE can be used.  Frank   Anchor  03:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - while I might want more from a recent subject, given the age of the subject I am satisfied with the sources provided to meet GNG, especially since there was no internet preserving sources 100+ years ago. Rlendog (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that the Nemec source is significant coverage (given that WP:SIGCOV specifically says "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material"), and I don't think that deleting this article would improve the encyclopedia, so I vote keep. Hatman31 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cbl62, the Nemec source is significant coverage given that we are dealing with a player from the very early years of professional baseball. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 21:18, 13 October 2022 (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.