Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Peters (pitcher)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Jon Peters (pitcher)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod because the person says the sources are reliable. Giving them the benefit of the doubt (I didn’t check), but for the sake of the argument let’s say they are right, I believe that is irrelevant. From every sports related deletion discussion I have seen, peters fails all the major criteria for notability that I can remember. The lead sentence indicates he is known as a high school phenom. His college athletic career is not discussed. And he has yet to play pro. To me that screams non notable. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly fails WP:NBASE so must meet WP:GNG, and it's an interesting one: Peters was the only high school baseball player to be on the cover of Sports Illustrated until at least 1997, per one of the sources there. Four out of five sources are Sports Illustrated as they did follow-up articles on him, as he never made a large impact after high school. The other is a two- or three-sentence LA Times article for setting a high school pitching record. There are also other sources out there which do look-backs on teen sports phenoms. I don't think it gets him past WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, but it's certainly a more unique AfD than your average minor leaguer. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Three articles exclusively about him in Sports Illustrated plus two other sources that mention him borderline satisfy GNG IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * keep It's never going to be a long article, but I found enough sources outside SI to document his (short) career. As an all-time high school record holder (which record, I understand, still stands) he's someone who shows up in the record books even at a below-pro level. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I was going to go weak keep due to the limited scope, but the look back on the other teen sports phenoms puts it over for me. Its an exclusive list and looks like there is sustained interest in those subjects.  That gives it more of a lasting coverage feel that pushes me to keep. RonSigPi (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete.. the keep remarks above seem to be based entirely on one sports illustrated article and its follow up.. Seems like a clear case of WP:1E. There isnt any content on the page and it seems like very little can be written about him so clearly he is not notable. A high school wins record by itself means nothing.. we don't know what the quality of the opponents his high school played against.. if it was a fairly weak amateur league that doesnt mean much... If he was that great a prospect he would have been drafted but apparently never was.. there is nothing even about him playing in college. Spanneraol (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. He may very well been a huge fish in a very tiny pond.MensanDeltiologist (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So a 53 game winning streak is a single event? That doesn't seem right to me. Just because the subject's glory days were limited or the glory was due to tiny pond doesn't make him unnotable. It was still glorious and reliable sources reported on it as such and there has been some followup reporting. ~Kvng (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Essentially yes since the claim for notability revolves around one SI article and pitcher "wins" are too dependent on other factors that its not that big a deal anymore. It's still the only thing thats been reported on him so yes it qualifies as one event ("the win total") and thats it. Spanneraol (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kvng. A 53-game win streak lasting over multiple seasons is not one event.  Also, wins is a major statistic (that is why there is an article on the 300 win club and one of the three metrics in the Pitching Triple Crown).  Even under the modern baseball philosophy of wins meaning less than WAR, in the 1980s when the subject played wins were still a big deal.  Also, while the pond may be small, it appears the team won several state titles, so at some point the competition was strong (and 4A is a large school division).  All this is academic.  Multiple pieces in SI and the cover in the 1980s, when the magazine was a BIG deal, give us a lot of coverage.  The retrospective from Mental Floss gives us multiple sources and lasting coverage.  GNG met. RonSigPi (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still articles about one thing.. the win totals.. not about him in any sort of significant way. high school stat records are rarely cause for articles. Spanneraol (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Question. I don’t read SI but I have flipped through it in places like doctors’ offices. Is the coverage in one of those short paragraphs where they highlight people for whatever reason or was it an in depth article?   Or even one paragraph about him in a larger article, say about high school athletes?   The answer makes a difference.  MensanDeltiologist (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are talking about the "Faces in the Crowd" section. This reference  (already in the article) is not a Faces in the Crowd blurb.  In general, magazines have feature stories on what they put on the cover. RonSigPi (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * there's WP:SIGCOV but there's a lot of distance between the examples given there but it is clear that the coverage does not need to be about the subject to contain significant coverage of the subject. ~Kvng (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure I totally get what you are saying but if I do, then I can only say this: Say there is a cover story about another hot high school pitcher this summer and the Magazine makes a one sentence that the author hasn’t seen anyone that interesting since ________ . Well, IMHO that confirms nothing more than _________… caught their attention  I would hardly say it is a ringing endorsement of their prowess.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep coverage is substantial. Article should be expanded with SI's followup piece on injuries and career following his win streak. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The level of coverage here appears to rise to the level needed to meet WP:GNG, albeit barely. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NHSPHSATH says High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. A cover story in Sports Illustrated with multiple follow-ups clearly meets that.  I have no doubt there are contemporaneous newspaper sources as well.  That said, the current (stub) is in desperate need of improvement. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:15, 9 March 2018 (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.