Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Lofgren


 * 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. There is no strong agreement on whether the available sources represent significant coverage. -Scottywong | gab _ 17:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Chuck Lofgren

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Minor league baseball player who is no longer in affiliated baseball. Spanneraol (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep, notable. Two-time minor-league All-Star, pitched in the Futures Game. Extensively profiled as a prospect, with full-length writeups in Baseball America's 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 annual prospect guides, among other places. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep With coverage such as this article, titled "LOFGREN EMERGES AS TOP PITCHING PROSPECT", I see a notable individual and an article in need of improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * The arguments to delete are WP:JNN arguments and are not grounded in policy. As this is a BLP, one more week of discussion would be a decent choice here.
 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  00:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing a LOT of mentions. From fantasy sports leagues, plenty of stats sheets, paper almanacs, baseball guides, photos, passing mentions like "After eight solid starts at Akron, homers and hittability hurt Chuck Lofgren's chances to reestablish himself as a prospect" but nothing that qualifies as significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, aka WP:GNG type stuff.  You could source a lot of data with these, but you couldn't prove notability.  Another example that I knew would be a keep, but I have to !vote Delete for a lack of any WP:SIGCOV and no major league games played.  Lots of buzz, but nothing meaty enough to push him passed the bar.    Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  01:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the printed prospect guides I mentioned? If you don't feel like going to an actual library, you can see his entry on page 131 of the 2008 edition here at Google Books. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those prospect guides cover most every minor league player, they dont count as significant coverage. Spanneraol (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they most certainly don't "cover most every minor league player". There are more than 4,000 active minor league players in any given season, and the guide only lists the top 30 for each team in any given year. Furthermore, why would the number of entries in the book have any effect on the significance of the coverage? We don't delete the Wikipedia articles on people who are covered in the 1911 Britannica, even though it's 29 volumes long. A third-party article of significant length is a third-party article of significant length, as far as the GNG is concerned. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The sources in the article itelf aren't worth much - [1] is mostly about the game, not the subject, so while more than trivial it is hardly significant, and [2] is a blog that I don't think adds anything to notability. But articles in 4 BA Prospect Guides plus Muboshgu's article do make up significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 13 May 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.