Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Duncan (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The result was nomination withdrawn by original nominator. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Jim Duncan (baseball)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable baseball player. Only played for one year and that was 100 years ago. Emptyviewers (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ATHLETE. Yes, he played for one year, in the National League 1899 season.  It doesn't matter that it was 100 years ago.  Mandsford 23:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Mandsford 23:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ATHLETE. As Mandsford said, time has absolutely no bearing on who is notable and who isn't. According to current consensus, if they play even one game for a Major League team, they are notable. Duncan did. He is notable. Redfarmer (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- Redfarmer (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of biographical-related deletion discussions.  -- Redfarmer (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Per above comments.  Suggest that the nom, a new editor, become more familiar with the process before nominating articles for deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:ATH. Subject played in Major League Baseball, the highest level of the sport. BRMo (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Notability is not temporary, not even if it's 100 years old. -Dewelar (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - A year in one of the major leagues makes for notability per se. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Nomination Still feel it is a pointless article (who would actually look him up?) but it's obvious that I lost. Emptyviewers (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Definite Keep per notability guidelines above. A very frivolous nomination, as it's fairly clear that Emptyviewers only nominated this article for deletion to harass the creator of the article (see discussion on User talk:PM800). Bds69 (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * THAT IS NOT TRUE I did not nominate because of past issues with PM800. I did find it because of that, but I nominated based on the fact that nobody is going to look it up. You are not WP:AGF. I wasn't the first person to try to delete it by the way. A random IP address deleted the first one. I just feel it's stupid having an article about somebody like that, but if you look above you'll see that I GAVE UP. Emptyviewers (talk) 17:09, 17 October 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.