Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Bicknell


 * 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   keep. JForget 03:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Greg Bicknell

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I can't really see how a guy who spent 12 of his 18 year American pro career in independent baseball is especially notable. Alex (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  —Alex (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  —Alex (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article plainly states that he played for the Taiwan Major League and the Chinese Professional Baseball League, the highest such pro league in that country. That's a prima facie keep under WP:ATHLETE.   Ravenswing  14:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Ravenswing. OCNative (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as required per WP:BIO and WP:N.  The sources consist of two newspaper articles, which are accounts of individual games in which he pitched (that is, not substantial coverage), a team website (not independent of subject), a statistics site (not sufficient to establish notability per WP:BASE/N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY), amd a blog and a wiki, which are not reliable sources per WP:SPS.  Highest level of play was 1-1/2 seasons in Class AA (in 1993-94), two steps below the majors. Text of article (e.g., "Thankfully for Bicknell...") suggests it's largely a vanity piece. BRMo (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ravenswing.. participation in top level foreign leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Often "top level" foreign leagues are no better than our minor leagues. Furthermore, maybe they're worthy of articles in that language's (Chinese, etc) Wikipedia, but not this one. Alex (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Responce Your opinion is contrary to precedent and policy, Alex. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd be interested to see how far you'd get with filing an AfD against a player who'd just played in Major League Soccer, on the premise that the caliber of soccer isn't that of the Premiership.  Ravenswing  18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, it's not my fault it's a stupid policy. There are some "top pro leagues" in other countries that are no better than our A ball, but by that precedent we should have articles for each of those players. See the German Bundesliga, the French Division Elite and the Baseball Philippines. Furthermore, we in America know, care about and follow Major League Soccer. How many Americans say they follow the Taiwanese baseball league? Alex (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably a lot fewer than Taiwanese who care about it, which is a better parallel, and a lot more than Europeans who follow MLS. In the meantime, however, if you're asking "Are those players really eligible for articles?!?!?" my answer would be "Well, yes." Sports notability standards aren't based on picking a single league in a particular sport and declaring all other leagues substandard; doubtless, for example, the Mexican national figure skating champion wouldn't crack the top twenty at US Senior Nationals, but that's irrelevant.  Now if you think it's a stupid policy, feel free to amble over to the appropriate talk pages and try to get consensus for your position.    Ravenswing  13:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Ravenswing, playing in a professional Asian league is enough to establish notability. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2009 (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.