Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Kollar


 * 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. Courcelles 23:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Harold Kollar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article created by AlexAutographs, he added refs and contested the PROD. Though it is sourced, I believe he still fails GNG and BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep five unique non-statistical sources. The subject is not the primary topic of most of the sources but that's not a requirement of WP:N. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  18:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequate sourcing and accomplishments. Alex (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Alexsautographs (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per KV. Spanneraol (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete (plus plagiarism problem) If the national articles about Keith Lieppman weren't enough to keep him from being deleted, then I don't see how the generally routine local coverage in this article passes GNG. Beyond that, this is yet another example of Alex plagiarizing himself between here and Baseball Reference Bullpen. This article is a direct cut-and-paste from, or was cut-and-pasted to, Kollar's BR Bullpen page. Aside from the AfD trolling, this is another Alex specialty; I've seen it 50 times. (They complain about it at BR Bullpen, too.) — NY-13021 (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The bullpen is also a wiki and it is allowed to copy from one to the other without plagiarism concerns. Spanneraol (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So it's plagiarism if I wrote it both on that Wiki and this one? Who knew. This NY character is raging. Alex (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The material can't be presented as original at two different sites. Either the Wiki page needs to credit BR Bullpen or the BR Bullpen page needs to credit Wiki. People have been complaining about this at BR Bullpen for a long time and Alex knows it. — NY-13021 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they haven't said anything. In fact, my contributions are wholly welcomed. I'm not the only member who does it either. Do you even ever go to the BR Bullpen? Alex (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we're reading different pages then, because I've seen repeated requests at Bullpen for you to source your contributions, as required when cutting and pasting from here to there or from there to here. But you obviously don't think any of these rules apply to you, so there's no sense arguing about it anymore. I guess there's one set of rules for Alex and another set for the rest of us. — NY-13021 (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: I'm surprised at the Keep votes above claiming that the article's sourcing is adequate; would any of the editors so voting point out the sources which - as the GNG requires - discuss the subject in "significant detail?" None do, and the subject receives passing mention at best.  Ravenswing  16:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I only found trivial mention of the name in source. Fails GNG with lack of significant coverage.  WP:BASEBALL/N does not assume notability have career minor leaguer.—Bagumba (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Joseph Fox 01:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

 Three relists? Come on, at least one admin have balls. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Articles fails WP:BASEBALL/N and the sources do nothing to satisfy general notability guidelines. Nothing beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage has been presented.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 00:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete After reviewing the non-statistical sources mentioned above, they all appear to consist of routine coverage. As there's no question the subject fails to meet WP:BASEBALL/N, the only question is whether the subject meets WP:GNG, and I say no. -Dewelar (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2011 (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.