Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Johnson (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   keep. Consensus seems pretty clear--all delete !votes withdrawn except for one based on there beingotherpeople of the same name, which does not appear to be a policy-based reason.  DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Johnson (baseball)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable former minor league baseball figure. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:BASE/N. No sources. PROD declined but no reason given.

Per WP:BASE/N: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." He never managed for the Yankees major league team as the article could be construed to insinuate. Alex (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nothing in the article to indicate notability. I confess that I have not searched for sources, as given the commonness of the name I expect a lot of "false positives."  But if someone wants to do the work to search and does find significant coverage of this player, I would be happy to switch to keep. Rlendog (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm srtiking my delete based on assuming in good faith that the "subscription required" sources that were added to the article are indeed significant. But as all the non-subscription sources added are routine, and from what I can tell from the titles and abstracts of the sources that require subscriptions, I am not sure that any but one are signficant, I can't change to keep. Rlendog (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is my personal opinion, but you should have never !voted delete if you weren't willing to see whether he was notable. We have many many thousands of crappy articles on notable subjects.--Milowent • talkblp-r  04:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was willing, but I found nothing. See my comment below.  That someone found some "subscription required" sites that may (or may not) establish notability, which I did not find on my search, does not mean that I (or anyone else) should not have !voted.  That is why we have these discussions. Rlendog (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I know this guy passes WP:GNG because I've read articles about him dating back to the early 1980s, when he was a Triple-A manager. Problem is, with the football coach and countless others sharing the same name, he gets buried. (He also often goes by J.J. Johnson, which is even worse for Google purposes.) I'll try to play around with Google News Archive, but I'm confident in my Keep vote. — NY-13021 (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep .. Long and very accomplished career in professional baseball... sources are out there. Spanneraol (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless those sources are presented, this should be deleted as a non-notable minor league player and staffer. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm seeing at least three different people of this name in the news (unless it's normal to have positions in three different states?). Without solid sources disentangled by someone who knows, this isn't going to fly. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnson has worked in professional baseball for well over 30 years, with the Yankees, Astros and Rockies, plus a year managing the St. Paul Saints, the most well-known independent team in the U.S. I understand the need for sources, but with this much time in pro baseball, I don't think we should default to "delete" just because Johnson has the misfortune of sharing a name with several more prominent sports figures. — NY-13021 (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Not finding the significant sources of coverage to pass GNG. Unless there is something more notable, he's a career minor league that has no WP:IMPACT and is WP:Run-of-the-mill, and likely to fail the presumption of notability even if more sources are found.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. It's bad enough that a large number of people in these baseball AfD debates wrongly believe WP:BASE/N trumps WP:GNG, but now people are supposed to make a subjective assessment of WP:IMPACT as well? Johnson has played and worked in professional baseball for between 30 and 40 years. That, in itself, seemingly passes WP:IMPACT, since the average pro baseball career is something like 3 years. Regardless, the odds are maybe 1 in 1,000 that a 30-year baseball lifer, who spent four years as a Triple-A manager and five years as a Double-A manager, hasn't been the subject of at least three or four feature articles (or enough media coverage, in aggregate, to pass GNG). In the pending Zach Daeges AfD, people are saying Daeges "easily" passes GNG, and yet we're supposed to believe a 30-year lifer like Johnson has fewer citations out there than Daeges? Sorry, but that's just silly. — NY-13021 (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per GNG, ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not."—Bagumba (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that "presumption isn't a guarantee," but no one has ever explained when that should otherwise override GNG. The general attitude in comments above seems to be, Well, Johnson has worked in professional baseball for 30 to 40 years, but he has a common name, and I don't want to spend more than 2 minutes with Google, so let's delete the page. Triple-A baseball managers get huge amounts of media coverage. Johnson's might have been in the pre-internet era, but we know it's out there. I've been planning to work on this page for a week, but 75% of my free time this week has been spent in the crush of baseball AfDs. — NY-13021 (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up, I spent more than 2 minutes searching, but even searching on terms like "'Jimmy Johnson' baseball" brought up the football coach and running back a lot more than anyone else. Google Books showed virtually nothing on the person in question; nothing that would advance a GNG argument.  I am still more than happy to change to keep, but as of yet no one has produced any evidence of significant coverage and I haven't found it myself. Rlendog (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if deleted, there is the option to WP:USERFY and recreate if more sources are found later.—Bagumba (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing my previous delete vote based on new sources and others views on subscription sources.—Bagumba (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Um, didn't anyone look for sources?  There's much out there despite the slightly common name.  Meets WP:GNP, no solid rationale for deletion that would improve Wikipedia.--Milowent • talkblp-r  22:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Every one of the references added that does not require a subscription are routine, not even remotely significant coverage. From the title, the 1st source that requires a subscription may well be significant.  The others are hard to tell just from the titles and the available information. Rlendog (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I am confident based on my brief effort that I didn't come close to finding all possible additional sources.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per many sources researched and added to the article by user:Milowent. The topic appears to pass WP:GNG. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:46, 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, causa sui (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep per references, well cited, meets the quality standards for biography. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 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.