Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jameson Taillon


 * 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. The rough consensus indicates that the general notability guideline has been met, the main reasons given for retention. –MuZemike 00:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Jameson Taillon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:ATHLETE This article was WP:PRODed but its creator removed the PROD. Fails both criteria of WP:ATHLETE as: While the subject may have received reliable sourced press, that does not make him notable per the higher standards of WP:ATHLETE." --moreno oso (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The subject "has not competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis, except for those that participated only in competitions that are themselves non-notable."
 * 2) The subject "has not competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.
 * Strong Keep: The PROD was removed because it was not applicable. I concede that the subject appears to fail WP:ATHLETE, but that is NOT sufficient reason for deletion.  WP:ATHLETE does not supersede WP:GNG.  If you look earlier in WP:ATHELTE, you will see the following: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not  guarantee that a subject should be included."  Given that, no justification at all has been presented for deletion.  The subject passes WP:GNG due to the significant coverage he received from the likes of MLB, ESPN, and Baseball Prospectus. Mickeyg13 (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  --  N / A  0  04:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:ATHLETE is a fallback in case a page does not obviously meet WP:GNG. In my opinion, a person with over 1,000,000 google hits and over 250 Google News hits has easily met the requirement of having significant coverage in third party sources. Rather surprised that this was even nominated. Kinston eagle (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As second overall pick, there's significant coverage. Agree with Kinston eagle that WP:ATHLETE is a fallback. Now, if this guy had been the 47th overall pick or something, it would be a different story. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 12:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Manny Machado's article got deleted for the simple fact that he had not played professionally. The same rules should apply for Taillon.--Yankees10 15:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:WAX, the deletion of Machado's article is not sufficient justification to delete this one. Also, not playing professionally is not enough justification.  The issue to debate is NOT whether Taillon meets WP:ATHLETE (we agree he does not), but whether he satisfies WP:GNG.  We contend that the significant, nontrivial, verifiable coverage he has received from independent, national sources (MLB, ESPN, Baseball Prospectus, Baseball America, etc.) satisfy this criterion.  For what it's worth I disagree with the decision to delete Machado's article for these same reasons, but that is not relevant here. Mickeyg13 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. The standards of WP:ATHLETE do not supersede GNG. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 16:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:ATHLETE is not a hard and fast rule to be slavishly adhered to, this is a good example of why. Eliteimp (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG despite failing WP:ATH. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. He hasn't even signed yet. Rigth now he's just a high school pitcher who got drafted. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 21:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not an argument. Yes we all know that he is not yet a professional athlete.  Nonetheless he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so by WP:GNG he qualifies for an article.  Specifically:
 * "Significant Coverage": He received pre-draft coverage in the following links referenced on his page:, , , , , and . Post-draft he received the following coverage: , , , and.
 * "Reliable sources": ESPN, MLB, Baseball America, and Baseball Prospectus are among the most reliable sources available for baseball content. If they don't count as reliable sources for baseball then I have no idea what does and would love to be educated about it.  I think the other links also count (Fangraphs is very well-respected in sabermetric circles for instance), but I'm more certain about ESPN, MLB, BA, and BP.
 * Independent of the subject": The aforementioned sources have no affiliation with Taillon aside from covering baseball. I'd disagree but be willing to listen to an argument discounting the sources from local newspapers or the the team that drafted him, but ESPN, MLB, Baseball America, and Baseball Prospectus are certainly independent.
 * So which of the above points do you disagree with? Or do you agree that he satisfies all the criteria for WP:GNG?  If he does satisfy WP:GNG, why does he not warrant a page?  Mickeyg13 (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2010 (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.