Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Holland (baseball)


 * 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   delete. Ignored appeals to a non-adopted guideline, but the appeals to WP:ATHLETE are strong in this discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Greg Holland (baseball)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus) WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search (add quotes around "Greg Holland", keeping them messes up code in external link) brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Minor leaguer who is not notable.-- Giants27 T/  C  23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This individual appears to be pass WP:BIO. The above search for sources was only for the past month. This Google News Archive search returns many more results. Specifically, see this article and this article. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Come back if/when "WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines" actually becomes a guideline. AfD hero (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete From the proposed guideline: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." Somebody got the idea that everyone called up to AA ball should have their own page, but the Northwest Arkansas Naturals are still a long way from the Kansas City Royals. Mandsford (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Arguello has been at class A for several years, is now at AA, still a ways from MLB. Mandsford (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * comment player does not pass Notability (sports) which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not passing an essay is hardly a reason for deletion either. And that essay doesn't acknowledge WP:N as WP:BIO/WP:ATHLETE does. Hobit (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect somewhere. I've corrected the bad Baseball Cube link in the article, but I've struck out at finding sources that show notability. We may well be hearing a lot more about this player in the future, but I think it's premature for an article right now. (Opinion subject to change if someone scares up sources.)-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  21:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Not passing a failed guideline isn't a reason for deletion, and in any case, it just says "not assumed" notable. From WP:BIO and WP:N the question is if there are solid sources on topic.  We've got, ].   and  provide some more details. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Three of the four stories cited by Hobit deal with his college baseball career; I think the consensus interpretation of WP:ATHLETE is that performance at the college/amateur level only demonstrates notability when it's at the level of the Olympics or a world championship, even though college sports may be covered by reliable sources. The other source cited by Hobit is an article on Holland's 2007 Rookie League team that includes a three-sentence bullet on him.  That's useful, but again not enough to establish notability.  Looking for other sources, I found a few more sources on his college play, but nothing significant on his minor league play. If he continues to pitch well, the coverage will start appearing and his article can be recreated, but based on what's available now my opinion is "delete." BRMo (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's consensous someone really needs to change WP:BIO (of which WP:ATLHETE is a part). It reads: "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.".  As those sources would seem to pretty clearly meet WP:N, I think the guidelines as written are strongly on the side of inclusion in this case. Hobit (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While WP:N's guideline of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" taken in isolation might suggest inclusion of articles on college athletes, it also notes that whether the criterion is met is determined "by consensus" and that it is only "one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." I also try to take into consideration the other relevant policies and guidelines, including WP:NOT, WP:BLP, WP:BIO, etc., as well as the consensus established by past AfD discussions.  Wikipedia's decisions are ultimately determined by consensus, not by any single guideline taken in isolation.  If you'd like to propose changing WP:ATHLETE to designate college athletes as notable, go ahead and try; I'll be surprised if the consensus supports the change. BRMo (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ATHLETE specifically defers to WP:N as it is part of WP:BIO. There is no change needed.  It is not the case that the guidelines are in conflict. I realize not everyone treats it that way, but that's the way it's worded. Certainly consensus in a specific case can override the general rules.  But I don't see an special case here that justifies treating this differently than the guidelines specify (and certainly no one has brought up such a case).   Hobit (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP (which is policy, and thus takes precedence over WP:N) is pretty clear that "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." It's preferable to cover college athletes and marginally notable minor league players in articles about their teams rather than in stand-alone articles. BRMo (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but two of those articles are solely about the subject. Specifically for winning an award (twice!).  In general when someone gets coverage on a national (though specialized) news site twice and that coverage is about them, there is no BLP issue.  If you would like to bring it to the BLP noticeboard, that's reasonable.  But I'm certain that there isn't a BLP issue here. Hobit (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The BLP noticeboard is for resolving BLP disputes and for dealing with editors who persistently make edits that violate BLP policy. I am just pointing out that WP:BLP, like similar language in WP:NOT, also provides guidance for AfD discussions.  Once a college baseball player (or a minor leaguer who doesn't make it to the majors) stops playing, he "essentially remains a low-profile individual"; thus, WP:BLP and WP:NOT are relevant. BRMo (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Once a notable college prof retires or a "B-list" actor retires they also are "essentially a low-profile individual". Should we not have those articles too?  Our standard of coverage is WP:ATHLETE which specifically defers to WP:N as a part of WP:BIO.  If you don't think that's the right thing to do, get consensus to change the guidelines.  But "Rules as Written" are very plain here. Hobit (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A difference is the college professors and actors create original works that continue to live on after the creator stops working. However, WP:BLP really should considered for all biographies of living persons, especially for low-profile individuals whose biographies will not be watched by as many editors. The BLP policy suggests that for a low-profile person, such as a college athlete, it's generally better cover them in another appropriate article, such as an article about the college's team, rather than creating a separate biography. Also, I don't think the rules need to be changed—certainly there are occasionally cases where an athlete doesn't meet the specific criteria of WP:ATHLETE, but because of a lot of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources still merits an article based on WP:N.  But IMO, that would require a lot more than two articles from a college sports Web site and winning a "conference player of the week" award.  The more important point is that AfD discussions need to consider all of the relevant policies and guidelines, and not just focus on the sentence that supports your position. BRMo (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Minor leagues are fully professional, therefore he passes WP:ATHLETE in the most obvious possible manner. It states A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport. AfD hero (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There has always been disagreement among Wikipedia editors about whether baseball's minor leagues should be regarded as fully professional. Although minor league players receive modest salaries, they are selected and employed by the major league teams and are essentially in a training / development program for the majors . Other policies, such as WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:BLP also need to be considered.  WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, WP:NOT says that Wikipedia should not simply duplicate information that appears in sources such as directories or news media, and WP:BLP says care is needed in creating and maintaining biographies of living persons, especially when they are "essentially low-profile" (such as minor league baseball players). BRMo (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete minor leaguer who does not meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 00:52, 23 April 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.