Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Jones (baseball) (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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Daryl Jones (baseball)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems like a perpetual minor league player (ten years without a major league appearance), and does not pass any of the relevant notability guidelines for athletes or baseball players. kelapstick(bainuu) 20:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

*Delete Has some sources but some are routine and only one seems to talk about him extensively, so in my opinion he doesn't pass WP:GNG. --Yankees10 21:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna vote on this one. I don't think he passes GNG (I do believe he is very close), but the fact that he was a good prospect and was a AS Futures game selection and Cardinals MPOY, makes me not mind if the article is kept.--Yankees10 17:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Several sources were identified in the initial AfD nomination, and notability is not temporary. Moreover, here are some others: Cardinals Minor League Player of the Year Feature article in yourhoustonnews.com Trivial mention in AP article Feature article in The Commercial Appeal To me, these sources (especially the second and fourth), in tandem with those previously identified, confer notability per WP:GNG.  Go  Phightins  !  22:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All of that seems routine to me as coverage that hundreds of other minor leaguers get.--Yankees10 22:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Um ... hundreds of minor leaguers earn organizational minor league players of the year awards? Over the course of a decade, I suppose ... but hundreds of other minor league players are also notable, as there are hundreds of thousands who have played in the minor leagues over the years.  Go  Phightins  !  22:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering winning the minor league player of the award for an organization is not a highlight that warrants automatic notability, using an article announcing the winner is routine coverage to me and shouldn't be used to pass GNG. Especially when its a press release from the teams official web site.--Yankees10 23:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG needs Independent sources, so a team press release wouldn't qualify. Game summaries are usually consider WP:ROUTINE, but that one from Commercial Appeal talks about him more than game summary usually talks about the player of the game.—Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I should have clarified; I included the Cardinals press release more as a note of an accomplishment (not necessarily one that confers automatic notability, but one that shows he's not the average minor league player) than a suggestion of a source to confer GNG. My mistake for not clarifying. The Commercial Appeal and the Yourhoustonnews.com, as I said, are the two that push it over the line ... admittedly barely.  Go   Phightins  !  10:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep.. Seems to have enough sourcing to pass... plus his selection to the All-Star Futures Game and the Cardinals minor league player of the year makes him more than a run-of-the-mill minor leaguer. Spanneraol (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete If making the Futures Game or being named an organizational player of the year were inherently notable, they should be listed in the guidelines. They're not. Aside from those two things, which hardly generated significant coverage, the coverage of this subject was the routine coverage that just about any minor league player receives. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you find me a specific player with this sort of coverage who is not notable?  Go  Phightins  !  20:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure how constructive using WP:OTHERSTUFF is going to be to either keep or delete.—Bagumba (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, considering several editors now have asserted that there are hundreds of other minor-leaguers who are not notable, and that "just about any other minor league player receives" the coverage Daryl Jones received (which I am not sure is true), I was wondering if there were minor league players whom people would deem non-notable that have received the same amount of coverage as Jones. Moreover, WP:OTHERSTUFF stipulates that one should not make an argument "solely because other articles do, or do not, exist". My question is whether Bbny-wiki-editor is asserting that this coverage is not sufficient because it does not meet WP:GNG, or because he finds it WP:ROUTINE. If the latter, than I would like to see other non-notable players with the same sort of ROUTINE coverage that he finds non-notable. In my opinion, the coverage Jones has received far exceeds that of most other minor league players, and thus surpasses WP:ROUTINE's stipulations. So pivoting away from my minor rambling here and to your point,, I am not asking from a WP:OTHERSTUFF perspective, rather from a WP:ROUTINE perspective - if this coverage is truly routine, there should be a pile of other players who have won minor league player of the year awards and who have feature stories solely on them.  Go   Phightins  !  01:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "My question is whether Bbny-wiki-editor is asserting that this coverage is not sufficient because it does not meet WP:GNG, or because he finds it WP:ROUTINE." Answer? Both. I don't believe a couple feature articles constitutes "significant coverage," unless maybe they're in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm basically in agreement with Bbny-wiki-editor. Northern   Antarctica   ₵  19:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * On sources and routine coverage:
 * Scout.com a sports site reporting on sports, routine.
 * Is a bullet point
 * Springfield News-Leader is the local paper where he played minor league baseball, this is routine in my opinion.
 * Springfield News-Leader again, sports blog reporting on local sports.
 * An article about the Cardinals minor league player of the year. This is, in my mind, the only thing that equates to significant coverage.  An article that states that he is the best of the players in their Cardinals system that was not good enough to actually play for the Cardinals.
 * In my opinion, the first four sources (in this list) are routine (sports covering sports, local papers covering local sports). The one source that looks promising is not significant enough on its own (or with routine coverage) to pass the GNG.--kelapstick(bainuu) 02:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What about that last source you mention in tandem with the piece from The Commercial Appeal, another feature article?  Go  Phightins  !  02:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly missed that one...going to look. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think local sources should be called routine. Instead, the reason we require multiple sources is to show that there is more than just local interest;  or in the case of major markets like LA or New York, it's multiple sources that consider something important.—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you mean this than (apart from I don't have highbeam and can't see the whole article) That is a Memphis newspaper reporting on a Memphas Redbirds game. Yes he is covered in the article but that is routine, the newspaper is reporting that he had a few good games in a row.  What is yourhoustonnews.com? It doesn't look like a newspaper (i.e. reliable source).  Regardless it is a "local boy does good" story (note the way it starts with "Spring High alumni Daryl Jones").--kelapstick(bainuu) 02:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As near as I can tell, yourhoustonnews.com is a conglomeration of coverage on a bunch of communities near, in, and around Houston.  Go  Phightins  !  02:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article mentions "Spring", apparently in reference to Spring, Texas, and it also has "The Observer" on top; note the bottom of http://www.yourhoustonnews.com has a link to "Spring Observer", while the top says "Houston Community Newspapers."  So its presumably a local newspaper for Spring.  Typically, I assume any decent athlete will have at least two significant sources: one from their hometown, another for their minor league or college town.  It's usually why I usually interpret "multiple sources" as three or more.—Bagumba (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * yourhoustonnews.com is a website that links together several community newspapers from areas around Houston. The Observer is the Spring paper but the website has several other papers from different communities. Spanneraol (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So it is a local boy does good story from a local newspaper, in my mind, still routine. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I found a few more sources that I added, including ones from mlb.com and rotowire that discuss him in more detail.. seems like more sources are out there since I found these fairly quickly but I dont have time to dig them up right now.Spanneraol (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A scouting report on Rotowire probably shouldn't count towards passing GNG.--Yankees10 03:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For that matter, MLB.com doesn't seem to be the most independent of sources for establishing notability.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree; largely, MLB.com operates independently of its clubs (except for press releases, about which we are not talking - Spanneraol added a feature article), so when its editorial base authorizes a feature on a minor league player, it is not just your run of the mill guy with no chance of making the major leagues.  Go  Phightins  !  10:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yankees10, when in doubt don't delete, AfD is not a surgical instrument.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted for further discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 20:35, 15 April 2014 (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.