Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Shafer (baseball player) (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.  Citi Cat   ♫ 01:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

David Shafer (baseball player)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was previously deleted at AfD. DRV overturned this closure, with the consent of the deleting admin. Still, weak delete given notability concerns for minor-league ballplayers. Xoloz 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: several votes by sockpuppets stricken out.  Voice -of- All  19:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions.   —X96lee15 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep WP:BIO states all athletes who play in a fully professional league are notable. Shafer plays in the Pacific Coast League, which is 100% professional.  If members of the baseball project want to conspire to keep minor leaguers from having articles, they should start their own encyclopedia.    Sasha Callahan   14:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of guidelines that are used for notability. WP:MUSIC, for instance.  Corvus cornix 16:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, WP:MUSIC sets the guidelines for notability of musicians, albums, songs, and so. However, WP:BIO establishes the notability for people.  WP:BASEBALL's anti-minor league position was formulated by a members of the project, and has no standing as an official guideline, but WP:MUSIC is a guideline.
 * Comment: Corvus, could you direct me to the guideline or policy establishing that only major league players are notable? There are those who define WP:BIO that way, but WP:BIO doesn't actually say that.    Ravenswing  14:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Shafer was an All-Star in the Class AA Southern League in 2006, which is a reasonable assertion of notability for a minor-league player. I'll go ahead and add the information to the article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the specific notability requirements of Wikiproject Baseball regarding minor league players have been brought up, I thought it might be a good idea to quote the relevant section: "Most minor league players are not considered notable, but some players are as determined by WP:BIO." As such, the fact that Shafer has not played in the major leagues is not an exclusionary factor in and of itself to say that his article should be deleted. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, minor leaguers rarely qualify for articles, this is just another one. No notability.  When he makes the majors, even if he only plays one game, then he qualifies.  Corvus cornix 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not appear to be the subject of "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" as required by WP:BIO.  Although some secondary sources do mention him (see google news result), I can't find any that give him "significant coverage" (address the subject directly in detail) as required by WP:N. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 16:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Making a minor league all star game is not a big deal, because it is still the minor leagues.   If he gets called up, he can be notable, but MiLB players are really a dime a dozen (there are 50 rounds in MLB draft + sandwich picks).   Person is also lacking "significant coverage" from independent sources.   Corpx 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. During the recent discussion concerning minor league players, it was asserted, and not disputed, that being a member of an all-star team would make one notable. This player certainly meets that. He is also playing in a fully professional league which meets WP:BIO standards for athletes. The article is also sourced. I don't see why this was even brought up for deletion. Kinston eagle 16:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment See the discussion here: Kinston eagle 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was only a couple of users not everyone Jaranda wat's sup 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being a mid-sized fish in a small pond still means you're swimming in a small pond. This being an encyclopedia and not the Directory of Everyone Who's Ever Been Paid to Play Baseball means it should have some minimal standards, and minor leaguers ain't it -- and that's on top of the sourcing problems. --Calton | Talk 17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Calton's well-made point above, with its implications for a sensible reading of WP:BIO. Eusebeus 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (copying per the DRV) The minor leagues while they are proffesional, it's not the highest league there is for baseball and there is consensus that minor leaguers aren't notable. Shafer won't be in the majors for a while (if ever) looking at this link currently a earned run average of over 7.50 which means horrible even for the minor leagues. Also there is active discussion in the WP:BIO talk pages over the situation as tons of minor-leaguers been deleted in AFD before, and it may go to the Village Pump as well per User:DGG suggestion there. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. So, you're saying he isn't notable, and to prove your point you're directing me to a published secondary source that is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject which discusses him. That happens to be WP:BIO's first and foremost "Criteria for notability of people". Along with the criteria for athletes that they play in a fully professional league, this alone should be enough for his inclusion. Add into this the fact that he is discussed in multiple reliable, intellectually independent, and independent sources and that he further distinguished himself by making an all-star team, and there should be no question that he should be included. Kinston eagle 19:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They have every minor-leaguer, not only him, you obviously have WP:BIAS for minor leaguers, if this article gets kept, that doesn't give you permission to restore the whole Kinston Indians minor-league baseball team articles which was validly deleted in AFD just to let you know. Again like I mentioned in the DRV, that is borderline at best for meeting WP:BIO guidelines and there is discussion on talk. Jaranda wat's sup 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Making a minor-league all-star team makes him notable. I agree with Kinston eagle, the discussions seemed to indicate agreement with allowing all-stars to be accepted. Spanneraol 19:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was you and Kinston that I saw in the talk, not concensus, Kinston obviously has a WP:BIAS for minor league players, and many of his articles on them were deleted in AFD. So it's basiclly you. Jaranda wat's sup 19:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI. I have never had an article to be deleted. All those articles on Kinston Indians players were written by other individuals. Furthermore, I do not have a bias for minor league players, I have a bias for following the rules and the guidelines set out in WP:BIO which clearly allow all athletes who have played in fully professional leagues to be included. If you don't like the guidelines, work on changing those. Kinston eagle 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Jaranda, you must not have read through that thread... several other people in that discussion were in general agreement on the issue... Perhaps you should address your own bias on this issue. Spanneraol 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok three users instead of two, one of whom is keep all minor leaguers who ever played, which that was quickly rejected still doesn't indicate consensus, I don't really have a bias with this as much as Kinston though, I just don't think they are notable, unless they are a top prospect, which he isn't. Jaranda wat's sup 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, an older centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes) also resulted in a general consensus that minor league baseball players who were league all-stars were notable -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * only a few editors discussed that, that doesn't indicate consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was open for discussion for months, and listed with everything else that was open for central discussion at that time (that's how I found it back then). If nobody else was interested in the issue back then, so what? You build a consensus with the people who show up, and everybody who showed up agreed on that point. Well, everbody except Rob Steadman, but he ended up getting indefblocked shortly thereafter, so that really doesn't count. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was any such consensus. Corvus cornix 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone including me thought it was too retrictive of course, and that's why it failed, but only a couple of users talked about minor-league players, I'm very supportive about reproposing that guideline, and rewrite from scratch but I need support though, we could discuss to death there, not here. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 20:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with re-opening it, if that's what you'd like to do. WP:CCC, after all. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see this discussion openned up again also. I would also like to see the a discussion run at the same time on the notability of players in lower tier soccer (european football) leagues.    Sasha Callahan   21:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The whole question of whether he's a notable minor-league player is fairly mute in this case. He does not appear to have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by WP:N.  That is a fundamental requirement of notability that applies to EVERYONE and EVERYTHING on Wikipedia.  It doesn't matter whether he's a minor-league player, major-league player, or even if he's the 154th person to walk on The Moon.  If he does not meet the significant coverage in reliable source requirements layed out by WP:N, then he is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 10:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." In my opinion, the sources cited fit this definition quite well. Kinston eagle 10:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which sources are you referring to? The 2 sources in the References section of the article only give him a passing mention, as being a member of the team.  That's hardly significant coverage.  If they had a whole paragraph about him that would be significant coverage, but a passing mention isn't.  The two links in the External links section are not suitale for assessing notability, as they are not independent enough. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 10:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are lots of publications that mention Shafer in detail; they just aren't in the article right now. For example, I'm adding his profile from the 2007 Baseball America Prospect Handbook even as you read this. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable independent secondary sources on this person, then by all means add them. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete view - WP:N is the over-riding guideline and the article fails to include substantial, reliable sources attesting to the subject's notability. Bridgeplayer
 * The article contains more sources than many baseball player articles, whose primary sources are usually just the baseball-reference site. Spanneraol 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about this particular book, but the "Baseball America Prospect Handbook 2007" reference seems to be the only one that possibly offers significant coverage in a secondary source publication. In other words, it's the only reference currently in the article that might possibly be able to assert notability. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 10:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Minor league baseball players are well within the normal levels of notability required for biographical articles, which is why they comply with WP:BIO. AshbyJnr 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a borderline case of the policy, discussion is happening now. Jaranda wat's sup 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is this discussion happening? Spanneraol 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep He plays in front of tens of thousands of people each year, any of whom might want to read about him. If someone is of interest to that many people with whom they have no personal relationship, then they are notable enough for Wikipedia to cover them. Brandon97 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:INTRESTING Jaranda wat's sup 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Minor league baseball players comply with WP:BIO. Any guidelines produces by projects should be consistent with the master guidelines. Renominating this immediately after deletion review is just a case of "I don't like it". Golfcam 09:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was the DRV closer that placed it here Jaranda wat's sup 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This has been kept twice because it meets WP:BIO, period. (The deletion on the first nomination was a bad faith closure by an interested party in clear contempt of consensus that was rightly overturned, as the actual result was no consensus-keep). Casperonline 11:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw some suspitious edits from the four users above, and I asked User:Voice of All for a private checkuser and he confirmed all of them as sockpuppets of each other. They are now blocked indef. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per notability - --Tom 21:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BASEBALL --Truest blue 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The original Delete argument was (and seemingly still is) founded in both the inaccurate assertion that WP:BASEBALL established specific grounds under which minor-leagues are deemed not notable, and upon the shaky premise that any such would trump WP:BIO's unambiguous phrasing. In fact, WP:BASEBALL has nothing more solid than "Most minor league players are not considered notable, but some players are as determined by WP:BIO," nor does WP:BIO support the popular fallacy that fully professional leagues are non-notable if they are not premier national leagues. I applaud WP:BASEBALL members for wishing to tighten up their criteria, as other sports Wikiprojects have accomplished, but do not support them using AfD as a stalking horse to bypass the need to establish -- and respect -- their own project's consensus ... a consensus they have not formally reached.    Ravenswing  14:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the main (read: most valid) argument for deletion here is the lack of reliable secondary sources that give the subject more than trivial mention. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 13:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: That is your argument, of course. The argument of just about every other Delete voter is on notability grounds, and several are citing WP:BASEBALL as if the mere mention of the Wikiproject was enough.    Ravenswing  14:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable secondary sources are required to establish notability. An argument of reliable secondary sources therefore IS an argument of notability.  Several people have argued from the perspective that minor-league players are inherently un-notable, but WP:N takes precedence in defining what is notable or not.  If there are non-trivial reliable secondary sources attributed to the article subject, then it is notable.  If there aren't, then it isn't.  The only contender for a non-trivial reliable secondary source in this article is the "Baseball America Prospect Handbook 2007" reference, but I don't know enough about that book to determine if it qualifies.  In my opinion, arguments for and against this article should now centre on the suitability of that one source, since no one has found any others. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's reliable but it lists all minor leaguers, even the backups etc, in cases like this the book isn't really that useful Jaranda wat's sup 16:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If its all-inclusive like that, then it can't really be used to assert notability. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 16:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Not much more I could add to Ravenswing's reasoning. --Djsasso 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ravenswing and WP:BIO.  New England  Review Me!/ Go Red Sox! 16:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per WP:BIO "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." WP:BASEBALL is not a Wikipedia policy. Smashville 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Only one editor is WP:BASEBALL as an argruement though, and of course should be discounted, same with the WP:BASEBALL protest votes as well, like several of them above. The issue is that it's sooooooo borderline in WP:BIO that it really doesn't include them, as some people consider them to not be the highest proffesional league out there, there are tons of AFDs on minor leaguers that ended up as delete, this minor leaguer is no different than the rest. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice, now the admin who deleted this article in the first gets to decide which keep votes are simply protest votes.  New England  Review Me!/ Go Red Sox! 19:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That fact that it is not the highest professional league has no bearing in this matter. WP:BIO only requires that they play in a "fully" professional league, not the "highest" professional league. All Minor Leaguers play in a "fully" professional league, as the minors are fully professional. Smashville 19:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is going to be discussion in the proposed athletes notabilty page, there is some comments in WP:BIO talk page though. I removed the WP:BASEBALL guidelines. I have to go to class so I'll comment in a few hours Jaranda wat's sup 19:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that a discussion exists about something does not make it a policy. Smashville 20:04, 29 August 2007 (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.