Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Simokaitis


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe Simokaitis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable, free-agent, 28-year-old minor league baseball player who hasn't played since 2009 and who is a .234 career hitter. Doesn't merit an article. Alex (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither his age nor playing status is a sign of notability. Minor league players can and are notable if they pass GNG, which I may add, you did not consider with your mass redirecting of articles. I have not yet searched for article on Simokaitis, but I will.--TM 15:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but age and playing status do indicate the chances of the individual making a MLB debut, which would establish notability. A free agent almost as old as I am has virtually no chance. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Meets general notability requirements. Added a few references to the article to back it up.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 15:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see anything that suggests meeting GNG; all coverage is routine for a non-professional and non-MLB player. Also, this article is an orphan with little chance of being "adopted", or whatever the nomenclature for de-orphaning an article is. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not ready to !vote, but it is not an orphan nor would it matter to this discussion if it were.--TM 14:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * An orphan is two or less incoming links. It had two incoming links when I wrote that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per two stories which cover the story in-depth.--TM 14:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Having just two stories doesn't seem very notable. There are local rotarians who have two stories in my town's newspaper too. I guess they deserve articles. Alex (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One is from a widely read sports page and the other one of the largest newspapers in a state. Not exactly your "town's newspaper".--TM 18:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Not an auto-keep under the specific guidelines for baseball players, but seems to meet general notability guidelines. I wish every pro baseball player had a bio as well done as this one. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * keep played at the major league level. thus making him a notable player.  162.83.194.253 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He didn't play at the major league level. Alex (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Article subject does not meet the notability requirements per WP:BIO, particularly those listed under WP:BASE/N. Most of the links and references do not constitute significant, independent coverage. There is one article listed (and more found through searching the web) that contains significant coverage but it is local coverage that falls within WP:ROUTINE.  Barkeep   Chat 22:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet the criteria of WP:BIO, even if one could argue that a story in the Lincoln, Nebraska newspaper about an athlete at the University of Nebraska, located in Lincoln, Nebraska, meets WP:GNG. My view is that it wouldn't.  As far the websites, huskers.com is hardly "independent of the subject", and the stat sites have an entry for many many many minor league players.  There had been a comment above to the effect that every pro player should have a bio "as well done as this one".  That should have no bearing at all on the decision.  Some Wikipedians are better writers than others, but just as poor writing won't make a notable subject less notable, neither does good writing make a subject notable.  The issue is whether the writer has been able to make a case for notability, based on what he or she has to work with.  I don't see anything "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Mandsford 22:34, 19 March 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.