Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bacon (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. Nakon 00:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Don Bacon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't see enough sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. Leading a a team to a minor league championship, as mentioned in the lead as what he's "perhaps most notable for" is not an inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. I don't understand the keep votes in the previous discussion, which fail to note the lack of significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep I have a general bias against deleting pages that have been here for years, like this one, which is 7 years old. I also have a bias against deleting bios for people from the pre-internet era, although this guy's page has as many good sources as some internet-era bios that people have voted to keep. As always, Baseball-Reference Bullpen is the best place for weaker bios like this one, so hopefully someone will copy this bio over there, if it hasn't been done already. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ARTICLEAGE at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, the age of the article is a "notability fallacy", and not a reason to keep. The pre-internet argument, suggesting there may be print sources that aren't online, is a legit argument, though I don't know that any of these sources exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as it says he played for the White Sox but it was not the actual major league thus, aside from that, there's simply nothing else convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  23:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep - This article does have print references that single out Don Bacon, specifically, in two different articles, in detail. This does not appear to be routine coverage, given the length of detail these two references go into.  That said, I recognize that the WP:NBASE policy is that "Some minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players".  The trouble is that this is not a RECENT minor league player, so I'd be loathe to create a page specifically for historic players of this minor league team.  Given that there was apparently significant contemporary coverage of this minor league player, I'm leaning towards keeping this one. Fieari (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Those pages are meant only for active players. I clarified that on WP:NBASE. Does two references count as "significant" coverage? I think it's not enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm prone to believe that, given he won an award and led a team to victory, and given that we have two articles with him (not the team, the person) as the central focus of the article, that there are likely more contemporary sources that will continue to establish his notability. That said, even if there aren't any more sources (and I still suspect there will be more), the two articles we do have are from reliable sources, and they are extensive, not merely a mention but the actual focus of the articles.  Reviewing this closer, I've actually become convinced to upgrade my !vote from "weak keep" to "keep". Fieari (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2016 (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.