Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Napier


 * 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) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Jim Napier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing in this article stands out as making this individual particularly notable. He didn't do anything at the major league level--he spent his entire career, as a player, coach and manager, in the minor leagues. Alex (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This guy spent almost 30 years in professional baseball, including two years as a Double-A manager and four years as a Triple-A manager. After you just voted to keep Henry Bonilla, why would you feel compelled to nominate this guy for deletion, despite a near certainty that he was the topic of at least a couple stories over the course of his three decades in minor league baseball? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Bbbny, while I sympathize with your comments regarding inconsistent treatment/use of the notability standards of AfD discussions, I gently remind you that the burden is on those editors who support the "keep" position to demonstrate sufficient depth of coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG.  In the mean time, I'll try to keep an open mind in this AfD.  Improper application of notability standards in one AfD discussion is not an excuse/reason/jusitification/precedent for misapplying the standards in another.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand, but these AfDs aren't brought here by random people who don't know any better. 75% of the baseball AfDs are nominated by the same small group of people, who seem to do it more out of boredom or their love of AfD debates instead of a desire to improve Wikipedia. Worse, their standards seem to shift from AfD to AfD. (And yes, I know about assuming good faith, but we've moved way past that in these AfDs. We have people claiming that one game in the Italian League is enough to meet notability and then turning around and nominating Jim Napier, who spent 30 years in professional baseball, for deletion just because his career preceded the Google era. It's a needless waste of everyone's time.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To address your point about sources, clicking on the "News" link above yields dozens of Google News hits for Jim Napier, including this, this, this, this and this. I didn't even bother looking past the second page of hits. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First, second and fifth references are reliable, independent sources in which the depth of coverage supports the notability of the subject per WP:GNG. The third reference is routine/transactional coverage, and the fourth falls somewhere between, but both are reliable and independent even if they don't rise to the level of "substantial."  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While I understand your points, his performance does not qualify under WP:BASE/N. He managed in the minor leagues, but "minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable" per the rule. Coverage from his playing days appears to be routine game recaps and blurbs. I may want to reconsider, however, as his job of "field director of player development" may be considered a major league one, which may be enough to push him over the edge of notability. Alex (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alex, WP:NBASEBALL is a specific notability guideline (SNG), which is a fast-track determination of notability for specific classes of subjects. However, merely because a subject fails an SNG does not mean that subject cannot still satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, which requires substantial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.  Based solely on the first, second and fifth references cited above by Bbny, this subject passes the GNG requirements.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree. Considering the length of his career, 'notable' coverage seems rather scant. Alex (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alex -- perhaps then you should not consider the length of his career. But just the level of coverage.  It is odd to adversely impact a person for having a long career, for these purposes -- the suggestion is that if he had the same coverage in a much shorter career he would be notable.  In any event, perhaps the views of others here will be helpful in communicating community consensus on the general topic, and be an aid when considering future AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that he had a long career may well have increased his notability. I am not sure why that is in any way a problem.  In any case, with a career starting about half a century before the internet became popular, some of the apparent "scant"-ness of coverage may well be a function of the fact that most historic newspapers, periodicals and even books are not reflected on Google. Despite that, what is there is more than adequate. Rlendog (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bbny and my comments immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources cited above, which should be included in the article. Spanneraol (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple reliable sources satisfy GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Muboshgu.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2013 (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.