Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Lemmerman


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk  16:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Jake Lemmerman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable minor leaguer, fails GNG. Wizardman 02:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete fails BASE/N and, due to insufficient coverage, fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just took a quick look at his GNG coverage, and it appears that there are a number of substantial RS article covering him primarily -- which is not even a requirement of GNG, but it the sort of thing that generally satisfies GNG. I haven't even done an exhaustive search, but looked through a dozen or so articles that were primarily about him. Epeefleche (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that Mellowed has been blocked indef, is no longer an editor in good standing, and that therefore his !vote does not count. Epeefleche (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you in charge of crafting Wikipedia policy now? Unless there's an allegation of bad faith by that voter, I see no reason why his vote shouldn't count. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I'm in charge of reading Articles for Deletion. At the top of this page. Left-hand corner. The first sentence of which says: "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." If I were in charge of crafting Wikipedia policy (snarky, much?) I would perhaps write into that language which does not exist there, concerning "allegations of bad faith", and delete from that language which does exist there, concerning it being where "Wikipedians" discuss deletion. But you've sought to fill that role. He has been indef blocked, and is not a Wikipedian. Epeefleche (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per the above, the subject has substantial RS coverage (well beyond what is now already reflected in the article), including entire articles in RSs devoted to him, which is the stuff of wp:GNG. Which is our primary notability standard. Epeefleche (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Since Jewish baseball players at any level are basically automatically notable, I withdraw the nom. Wizardman 12:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To rephrase, I do believe Epee's added sources meet GNG. Yeah I could've worded the above way better (like the opposite of how I worded it maybe), and if someone wants to close this they're welcome to, unless someone else still doesn't think it meets guidelines. Wizardman  03:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Assuming wizardman is joking here... I was torn on this one and I'm aware of Epeeflache's devotion to Jewish baseball players... but this guy was a muliple time minor league all-star a former league mvp and played for the national team (albet in a qualifying tournament not the actual WBC).. anbd there are a few decent sources there...so i'm ok with keeping it. Spanneraol (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - As far as great Jewish baseball players, Jake Lemmerman is no Hank Greenberg, Al Rosen or Sandy Koufax. Nonetheless, there are three or four articles with significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; therefore, the subject satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Appreciate Wizard's kind words -- it's always a credit to a nom when they can keep an open mind, and be open to changing their mind on an AfD they nomninated. Also agree with nom's statement now that "if someone wants to close this they're welcome to, unless someone else still doesn't think it meets guidelines." Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG. Little more than routine coverage that any decent athlete gets these days. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand this because he clearly has a lot more coverage in independent reliable sources than a lot of decent athletes whose articles were deleted recently, and full length articles are hardly "routine coverage."Rlendog (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with Rlendog. Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact he has more coverage than some other people whose pages were deleted is irrelevant. The point is that this guy hasn't been covered sufficiently to pass GNG. In terms of media coverage, there's nothing in this article that goes beyond the routine coverage that any decent athlete gets these days. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The others we deleted were decent athletes, and Lemmerman got more coverage than they did. Hence he receives more coverage than "any decent athlete gets," which is not our notability standard anyway.  But he also receives enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, which is our notability standard. Rlendog (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bbny--you must have noticed from this discussion that, at least as to the AfD participants here, your view is a markedly non-consensus one. All five other !voters (who are not indef-blocked former Wikipedians) have disagreed with you. Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I guarantee my batting average in AfDs is over .900. I can't help it if only a few people with loose standards chose to participate in this discussion. Frankly, after the way you've acted in prior AfDs involving Jewish players, it's no wonder. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Everyone in this discussion who is a Wikipedia editor with more than 500 edits has a consensus view that is at odds with your view. You may think that you, with your limited editing history, know more than everyone else. But I would ask that you note the unanimous disagreement with your view here. Epeefleche (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2015 (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.