Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Wathan


 * 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. In a conflict between two editors who argue the specific NSPORT guideline should be applied, and three editors who argue that the GNG should prevail, the result is no consensus. Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Derek Wathan

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Just one more for today. Derek Wathan is a retired minor league baseball player who never reached the major leagues. He currently does not hold any other "notable positions" such as manager or coach. Therefore, I do not believe he is worthy of an article. Alex (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. What about his 600 plus gnews hits?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:GHITS --Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did. It says:  "using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is".  It also says "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia."  I suggest, therefore, that since per the guideline cited we have established that he is quite well known, you read the articles which reflect that he is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The quality of the search engine results are high, as you will see.  Also:  "Note further that searches using ... Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search."--Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You ask someone to see WP:GHITS, while you have done practically the same exact thing with WP:Not notable. Both of these arguments to avoid in Articles for Deletion discussions are on the same page, even.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 05:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was agreeing with Alex's reasoning. I should have been more explicit. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Man.. I knew this AFD would show up someday for someone to get brownie points after the baseball notability guidelines were changed to exclude Triple A players. Responding to someone saying that there's a lot of reliable news sources with WP:GHITS is wrong, since that applies to Google Web Searches. GHITS clearly states, Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Book Search, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search. One day I was going to expand the Derek Wathan article to great lengths since he was my favorite minor league player, and at the time his article satisfied baseball notability guidelines. Then an admin and two of his friends changed it after he made a bunch of AFDs that failed.
 * Derek Wathan is an article with a lot of potential, and seeing how there's several hundred news articles to use as references, I could easily turn this into a B-Class article if not higher. But no, someone got upset one day that his AFDs failed and went off to change the rules himself. The only reason I didn't participate in the discussion was because I saw the whole thing as a farce, especially with all the events leading up to the guideline change. Articles like Derek Wathan were made because they did in fact meet baseball notability guidelines a few years ago. Sorry, I am going stick with my gut feeling that this article has WP:POTENTIAL and enough reliable sources to satisfy general notability guidelines, and that trumps the tainted baseball guidelines every time.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 05:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I bet it was Wizardman. Alex (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to remember since the whole series of events were awful, but I believe it was actually Wknight94 that destroyed the baseball notability guidelines over a giant series of failed minor leaguer AFDs on his part. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Notability is only the final part in a long series of BS. Wizardman is a good editor, and as far as I know he did not take part in the farce discussion to change the guidelines either.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 06:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem with setting the bar for notability where it is. There are so many career minor leaguers that to deem them all inherently notable would be unmanageable. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont remember Vodello participating in the notability discussions either when I originally was involved in making it more inclusive or when WKnight and others changed it to the current rules which I reluctantly supported. If you want to reopen said debate, I dont think you'd get much support right now.Spanneraol (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If it reopens, feel free to ping me to let me know. I missed the change discussion, sadly.  The prior approach worked fine, from my perspective.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per above comments I made, and per Vodello. Note: The preceding vote was from User:Epeefleche. Thanks!  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comments above this subject passes GNG -Drdisque (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2010 (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.