Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman)


 * 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 Redirect. This is a close and contentious one, but the weight of policy-and-guideline-based arguments seems to fall on the side of a redirect to a suitable place - the article subject prima facie passes a notability guideline, but vanishingly little content has been brought up that could be put into such an article. Deleting and/or redirecting also seems more favoured numerically. has asked that the history be preserved for a merge, so I won't actually be deleting - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC) David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Jones (third baseman)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A baseball player about whom nothing is known except his last name and that he played one game. This makes him fail WP:GNG, and the article fail WP:NOTNEWS / WP:NOTSTATS. There is just not enough material about him to write a biographical article, as this article proves: it is essentially only about his one (unremarkable) game and his team, rather than about him as a person.

I assume that there is a special notability guideline that presumes the notability of somebody who played baseball at this level, but this presumption of notability can be rebutted if it is shown that the substantial coverage in reliable sources required by WP:GNG does not exist. In this case, the author of this article has apparently extensively researched the subject and has cited all kinds of match reports and baseball statistics, but nothing resembling substantial coverage of the man himself. Any presumption of notability has therefore been rebutted.  Sandstein  08:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.   Sandstein   08:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.   Sandstein   08:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Passes WP:NBASE so this is a GNG question. I'm undecided for now. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Restore redirect. Fails GNG. The article pads out three short sentences and a line of statistics from a brief match report. I would restore the former redirect rather than delete in case his first name and other biographical details should ever be found. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the fluff that had nothing to do with the player which was about 40% of the article. Still could be trimmed down, but if his first name was known then we'd keep the article. It was an achievement to get almost 10K bytes about a 4 AB career - maybe written on a dare?  Keep but pare.  Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I want to look at this when I have more time. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored the removed content; I don't see it as fluff, especially considering that Lewis (baseball) has very similar information. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment He and players like him are already listed at List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. As currently written, the article and its listed sources seem more like a WP:COATRACK for his team's season and the lone game he played in, and little about Jones. The guideline WP:WHYN seems relevant: We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. I'll see what other sources can be identified.—Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am currently working on this article, and I fully believe it should be kept. If it is deleted, what is to stop Lewis (baseball), a virtually identical article and a FA from being deleted as well? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, a similar previous AfD for the aforementioned Lewis article had consensus to keep as well. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As an extra note, since I removed the redirect, I've brought the article to B-class rating and a DYK appearance, and I plan to continue expanding it soon. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. Half of that article isn't about Jones, it's about the Mets' season. You should be expanding and adding that to 1885 New York Metropolitans season.  And bringing up another article only brings the questionablilty of that article into light.  It seems the FA folks were focused on format, prose & sources, but not on content relative only to the player. I mean, since when do we consistently write about our references in the context of the article: baseball-reference was mentioned 6 times.  Most of that article would be better off in 1890 Buffalo Bisons season.  I believe expanding these articles is well-intended, but misguided. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see where you are coming from, although I do think that at least some background context surrounding the circumstances should be provided. In any case, if the content is to be removed, then it should be removed in both articles. I still am firmly against deletion. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You could expand List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names with a few paragraphs on each player, and then a more detailed write-up on the team's season article (or even the team's main article). You could cross-reference the content with Main or Further. The content in this article seems salvageable split between the aforementioned pages. Just a thought. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In any case, if the content is to be removed, then it should be removed in both articles: It's not necessarily WP:ALLORNOTHING. We need to evaluate this page on its own merits and context.—Bagumba (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This guy is a very obscure player who had vanishingly little impact on the sport of baseball. The problem is that American baseball fans are religious about players and compiling stats & information. This makes it a virtual certainty that any player, no matter how obscure, will have enough written about them by reliable sources for a Wikipedia article. I also think it's bullshit to nominate someone for deletion solely because we don't know his first name. We don't know Jesus' "real" last name or even if he had one. The "true name" of the Abrahamic God (the Tetragrammaton) has been lost to time. While I don't think this player is on the level of importance of those two figures, the idea that because parts of someone's name were lost means they're not notable is not based in reality. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 23:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This makes it a virtual certainty that any player, no matter how obscure, will have enough written about them by reliable sources for a Wikipedia article: Feel free to identify the significant coverage of the person.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The article's length masks the fact that it contains only four sentences about Mr. Jones: "Defensively, Jones recorded two putouts and four assists." "When batting, Jones had one hit at four at bats, for a batting average of .250." "Both The New York Times and Sporting Life remarked that Jones had played 'a very good game'." "The New York Times said that Jones was expected to join the Metropolitans; however, Jones never played for the team again." This is not enough for an article, and I doubt that anything more will be found. Mlb96 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hope to expand the article with more information about Jones himself in the future. I only just created the article, and so there is not much info on the page yet. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope to use some newspapers from Newspapers.com for the info, in case you are wondering where I am getting it from. A search for the keywords "Jones New York Metropolitans" from the year 1885 on the site yields many results. It is also worth noting that Lewis (baseball) is a very similar article and a featured article, and I hope to model my expansion of Jones after that. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also information in the sources listed in the article about Jones that I have not added yet, such as some statistics from Baseball-Reference. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A search for the keywords 'Jones New York Metropolitans' from the year 1885 on the site yields many results: The problem is that Newspapers.com searches look for those words on a page, not necessarily a specific article of that page. Jones being a generic name results in lots of pages seeming to match. A cursory search did not yield any relevant pages for this baseball player.—Bagumba (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: Despite being 10 years old, consensus from Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) is still sound, and applies to this article as well. However, I would have to agree with some other participants that much of this article is unfocused on Jones himself. Curbon7 (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that the notability requirements in the 2011 Lewis AFD were different than today. The change took place in 2013. If I am reading correctly, one game alone is not notable: To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. [....] Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.[7] [Note-7 reads: Articles that are not sourced to published material providing significant coverage of the subject (beyond just statistics sites) may be nominated for deletion.]  That same notability requirement in 2011 applied only to minor leaguers. I do not believe this player has enough independent sources about him (and him alone). Based on this, I would say Restore redirect. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that Lewis (baseball) should be redirected as well? Because if so, that brings up the topic of deleting a featured article. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Never said that. I said "Pointing out that the notability requirements in the 2011 Lewis AFD were different than today." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The rationale for the nomination at Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) was basically Should we really be adding ones where baseball scholars have never been able to find the guy's name? This AfD is different, positing that the subject does not have enough coverage, not merely that we don't know his full name.—Bagumba (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:NBASE, and the sources in the article are enough for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or restore redirect Fails to meet WP:GNG without significant coverage of the person from multiple, independent sources. The article is a WP:BOMBARDMENT of sources about his team and the lone game he played in, forming a WP:COATRACK for anything tangentially related to the person. Some have cited WP:NBASE, a subtopic of WP:NSPORTS, which states: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline ... conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. While the SNG is a shortcut that shows the subject is "likely to meet" GNG, examination of GNG itself shows the contrary. If the trivial details are removed from the bio, we are left with a stub.  Per WP:WHYN: We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. WP:PRESERVE is already met by existing mention at List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names, which apparently this use to redirect to.—Bagumba (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or restore redirect per Bagumba.4meter4 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or restore redirect. He played one game in a major north american professional league. Masterhatch (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Is it kind of silly? Yes. Is there some content here that isn't directly about Jones? Yes. But I see that there is an article at this title, and I'd go so far as to say it's a pretty good one, warts and all. Sure, there is not a lot of information available about the guy, but there's plenty of coverage (from the New York Times and Sporting Life). This seems to interface well with WP:GNG and WP:NBASE. I'm not sure how well WP:NOTNEWS applies to events which happened in 1885, and my coatracks don't feel particularly bombarded. It feels like the real issue at hand in this discussion is whether the article is silly; or, rather, whether it is silly for us to have an article about this guy. That's arguable, and it may even be true, but I don't think it really matters if our notability guidelines occasionally cause us to have a weird edge-case article that is kind of silly (not even bad): this is certainly not a bad enough article that we need to WP:IAR to delete it. jp×g 08:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes NBASE. We have at least one featured article on a player who played only one game and is known only by his last name.  For a subject over 100 years old the sources are not always readily available. Rlendog (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with redirect to the page of players where only a last name is known, but deletion without a redirect would be inappropriate. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Restore redirect. NBASE provides a presumption of notability, but it's a rebuttable one. Jones fails the GNG, as Bagumba explains: some stats and a few sentences in the press do not significant coverage make. While the coatrack-esque tangents aren't necessarily bad, they don't contribute to notability, which is of course based on what reliable sources say about the person himself. Redirection ensures that no directly pertinent content is lost. And finally, this is hardly a novel position: precisely the same arguments carried the day at Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball), which hasn't been mentioned above but seems directly on point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Restore redirect as the subject does not meet the general notability guideline. The only sources which provide prose coverage about the subject are the New York Times article ("A new man covered third base for the local team. He is an amateur, and gave his name as "Jones". It is believed that he will join the Mets. He played a very good game") and the Sporting Life article (which says almost exactly the same thing and therefore likely isn't a separate source anyway). This is not significant coverage of the subject. The other sources are either statistics databases or are included for background only. The article is a good illustration of why the GNG exists, because with so little information about the subject to work with the article is instead almost entirely about his team and the (unremarkable) game he played in. I disagree that more sources are likely to exist, any sources would be published in the United States, in English, and would be in the public domain, making them likely to appear in digitised newspaper archives. Nor is it surprising that someone only known for playing in one unremarkable baseball game would not get much biographical coverage. WP:NSPORT is not a substitute for the GNG: "the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline". In this case the subject barely passes NSPORT but does not meet the GNG.  Hut 8.5  07:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Restore redirect. I participated in the recent DRV, and !voted to overturn the close as keep. Just to confirm, I believe the correct policy decision here is to redirect, given that the article is not a bio - it's just an extended discussion about one baseball game - and there is no evidence that any sourcing exists on which a properly structured bio could be created. Thus it fails WP:GNG and it doesn't seem like the SNG applies in this particular instance. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin If the redirect is restored, I would like to merge/copy some condensed content into the New York Metropolitans article, 1885 New York Metropolitans season & List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names, so please preserve the page history for attribution. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:NBASE#2 "...played one game with the New York Metropolitans". WP:N is specific that a subject must pass our SNG or GNG. This one passes our SNG. Lightburst (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NSPORTS allows discretion: conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.—Bagumba (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have used my discretion and interpreted the guideline. You are very active in this AfD refuting rationales that say Keep. Perhaps start an RFC like the one for Olympians. The guidelines show that an article has to pass one or the other. Those who favor deletion say they must pass both. And as always, one can find a rationale to delete or save any article based on the obfuscated guidelines, policies and essays. It is all about who shows up to argue in an AfD. Lightburst (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: found The actual local clipping bit more information about him- Apparently a very good player who would only give his name as Jones. Lightburst (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the source that was already in the article from the beginning. It's the only one with any actual information about Jones and there's basically nothing other than that. Silver  seren C 23:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Silver seren That was not the actual newspaper as seen in the article. I am finding a player who appears in 1885 right after this, who only went by Jones played for Cincinati. I am checking if it is the same person. My newspaper account, it is a tough slog. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your article is the same as this article, which is currently Reference #6 in the article. They are the same. Silver  seren C 00:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody is disputing that User:Silver seren. My point is that the article's clipping is not actually attributed to this newspaper - it says Sporting news - so I searched for the actual local newspaper. A small detail - I am still looking for more news of this Jones. Lightburst (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What I love about research is finding odd news. People poisoning each other, and getting run over by trains - just sitting on tracks, and this little boy killed by a baseball in 1885. And some kind of baseball scandal in 1885. Lightburst (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Silver seren Thanks for that, I see that the same article is the one you showed me. I think I got mixed up only looking at the Sporting News article displayed in the article. Thanks and sorry I did not look closer at the existing refs or the one you shared with me. Lightburst (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Restore redirect Most topics' SNGs serve only as stand-ins for the GNG, and for those topics the GNG has the final say; this principle is quite well-established. As pointed out by Bagumba, the first sentence of WP:NSPORTS (which contains NBASE) makes it extra clear that this is also the case here. Thus, keep opinions which are only based on the SNG (this seems to be most of them) ought to be disregarded when closing this AfD. Despite two reliable secondary (or are they secondary?) sources being cited, I don't think the amount of content in those sources can be considered significant coverage, so I think this fails the GNG.  PJvanMill ) talk ( 00:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:PJvanMill Or SNG is for pre twitter and internet folks. 1885 you didn't even have to give your full name to play in the bigs. Lightburst (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Lightburst No, the GNG is leading for the pre-internet era, too. The whole point of notability is to exclude subjects about which a proper article cannot be written. Everything in a Wikipedia article ought to be cited to reliable independent secondary sources, so I don't see how we can write a proper article about someone when very little content about the person exists in such sources.  PJvanMill ) talk ( 10:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:PJvanMill it is a longstanding disagreement. SNG - NBASE says he has to have played in one game, WP:N says subject must pass sng or gng. But we both know a person can turn up a contradictory essay, guideline or policy to support their delete rationale - or a redirect which is essentially also a delete. I have likely devoted enough time to this Jones character, there are articles to work on. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is possible for an SNG to give a subject notability independent of meeting the GNG, e.g. WP:NPROF does this. The bit of WP:N which says that subjects can be notable through meeting an SNG means that SNGs can establish notability like this. However WP:NSPORTS does not establish notability independent of the GNG, the introduction makes it clear that it aims to set out when subjects are likely to meet the GNG.  Hut 8.5  14:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sure that you are exactly right, and I am exactly right. The myriad of possibilities creates obfuscation; especially at AfD. All that matters is who shows up to weigh in: and after any sort of backchannel Wikipedia process like ANI or DRV, the organic AfD process is sullied. Lightburst (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Lightburst I am sure that you are exactly right, and I am exactly right: there is no right and wrong here, but there is consensus, which we're supposed to base our decisions on. Maybe you can get consensus to change the first sentence of WP:NSPORTS to turn it from a normal SNG that include[s] verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic into a special one that operate[s] according to principles that differ from the GNG (quoting WP:SNG), but until then, your argument is not based on the relevant guidelines.  PJvanMill ) talk ( 15:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:PJvanMillRight- we see what we want. You make my point. I see this. WP:N And NBASE which clearly says:  My point is that we can raise the hurdle as high as we want based on our predisposition, or we can ferret out a sentence to support our position. But this one is over. The same occurred with Footy. Editors raised the bar, and it was the same four editors creating their quorum consensus. Carry on-  there are other articles for us to visit. Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Lightburst One key word in both of your quotes is "presumed". The point I'm making is that the presumption of notability offered by passing a normal SNG (normal, so not the specific exceptions which operate on different principles) can be overruled by failing the GNG. Yes, the the GNG and the normal SNGs both provide a presumption that the subject is suitable for an article, but a normal SNG offers less of a guarantee. The normal SNGs are subordinate to the GNG. This principle enjoys consensus, it is in the WP:SNG guideline and it is specifically stated in WP:NSPORTS as well. So no, it is really not in line with the guidelines to say that NSPORTS can overrule the GNG.  PJvanMill ) talk ( 16:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You quote WP:NBASE #2, but leave out the qualifying paragraph after the bulleted list: To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. [....] Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.[7] [Note-7 reads: Articles that are not sourced to published material providing significant coverage of the subject (beyond just statistics sites) may be nominated for deletion.] So, no: one game alone is not necessarily an automatic keep. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is as you say. Whatever consensus is established here or there or anywhere. It is rather pedantic to say SNG is trumped by GNG because it is exactly not what is stated in N. Look at the many Olympic athlete stubs - there is presently a discussion about their presumed notability. It is automatic? Or must we find non-trivial articles about pre-1924 Olympic athletes. I found it interesting anyway looking for clues about this Jones character. Lightburst (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Lightburst I will just point out that I have explained how your quotes are consistent with my view of the guidelines, but you have not explained how my quotes fit with your view. You have tried to 'counter' the parts of the guidelines that I pointed out by citing another part of the guidelines which you thought contradicted the parts I cited, but I've explained why there is no contradiction. So, I'm somewhat hopeful that if you just let your mind rest on the sentences The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic and This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person [...] is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia (emphases mine), you might come around to the same understanding of the guidelines as me. Kind regards from  PJvanMill ) talk ( 10:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:PJvanMill I understand completely, that if you want something deleted...you will find something in the servers of Wikipedia to support that outcome. SNG exists for automatic notability. One game played in the NFL for instance. Automatic notability. You can raise or lower the bar based upon minutia or you can follow the SNG. It is a debate, and we have different interpretations, there is no reason to dumb down your argument for me, I have several college degrees. Seems several other participants here agree with me. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Now hving made my argument I have moved on. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Restore redirect - there is not enough biographical information about the man to enable us to write an article about him that is verifiably accurate and suitably detailed. He fails GNG. I'm entirely happy that brief details from this attempt should be added to the list article etc..., but this is not a suitable subject for a full article in my view. I doubt the game - which is what the article is actually about as written - could justifiably be considered a notable one so that doesn't give me confidence that we should write an article about it either. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It is common for people in past centuries to have little known about them because record-keeping was more onerous and the passage of time tends to destroy information. But the older the subject, the more cachet it acquires an antiquarian way and so that offsets the loss of information.  The career of early sportsmen is of particular interest to sports historians because they were the pioneers who established foundations of the sport.  And, as such articles are not BLPs there is no pressing reason to make them disappear.  While notability is just a guideline, our policies such as WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE are supportive of retention in such cases and policies trump guidelines. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * An option listed at WP:PRESERVE is having the original article turned into a redirect.—Bagumba (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment- comparisons to Lewis (baseball) are inappropriate and a bit misleading. That player was notable for his very bad play, which sources commented on extensively. This sort of coverage does not seem to exist, and you wouldn't expect it to for someone who was OK but unexceptional in their only appearance. I also think if this article is retained (and the information is probably best presented in a list), all the extraneous blurble needs to go. Excessive discussion of the team's mediocre season, and the spelling of the name of the umpire in that one game (?!) are just there to pad the article out and mask the lack of content. That too is a bit misleading. Reyk YO! 17:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons cited above. Apparently, in the period 1870 at to 1900, the unknown first name happened a lot in baseball.  See the 34 names at List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names.  His existence is well enough documented. Baseball statistics (even obscure ones) are part of the fabric of baseball and its lore. WP:Not paper.  You cannot say that Water babies do not exist unless you have seen them nonexisting.  We ought not to rewrite history and make him disappear. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He's not being disappeared; he's being preserved at the aforementioned list. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:PJvanMill User talk:Bison X User:Hut 8.5 User:Bagumba Can I have some other editor's eyes on this book reference? Jones may have been a formerly blacklisted player. The reference cited here says Cincinnati traded sold him to the Metropolitans in 188 5 7 which would may square with our Jones here. He Went on to become an umpire? Yesterday I found quite a few news articles for a Cincinati player named Jones as well. Lightburst (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Lightburst (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It says Cincy sold him to NY in 1887 — I think you missed the period after "in 1885." I believe the player in your link is Charley Jones. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks I was laboriously correcting that. This may be the same person - Charles Wesley who took on the name Jones is how I read it. Im am sad about the pepper in his eyes. lol Lightburst (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This sounds like original research to me, unless the source actually says they are the same person and not a different person who happens to have the same very common surname. As has been noted a bunch of baseball statistics sites don't list him as playing in any other game.  Hut 8.5  08:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:NBASE, which is adequate according to WP:N ("It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)"). This sort of content is what makes Wikipedia special to me, and why it is fantastic that it is WP:NOTPAPER and thus we do not have to limit ourself to well-known and popular topics. Plus, the article has been improved since nomination with sources such as added by 7&6=Thirteen. NemesisAT (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The "improvement" you refer to is WP:REFBOMB fluff that he's trivially mentioned there, there, and there, and then WP:OR that he's not to be confused with another player with surname Jones that no source says that there is any confusion to begin with.—Bagumba (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, evidently I was confused as I had thought that article was referring to this player. Regardless, I stand by my keep vote per my above comment and disagree that the addition of two references is WP:REFBOMBing. NemesisAT (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Same team, within a year, and same last name. In a newly formed league.  Easily confused.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Restore Redirect I've just finished removing all of the padding fluff about the team's season and extra information that has nothing to do with Jones (such as the umpire's name being misspelled added in as some sort of relevant information). There was an amazing amount of padding material put into this article to make it appear Jones was more important than he was. He absolutely fails the GNG, which is the only notability requirement that matters in the end. The SNGs only exist to give presumed notability to an article subject, suggesting that there would be sources out there to meet the GNG. But if an actual exhaustive search is given for such sources and not found, then the SNG is ultimately failed and the presumed notability found to be wrong. Hence, the subject is non-notable. The closer should disregard any Keep votes above trying to say the SNG overrides the GNG. These claims are a complete failure to understand notability on Wikipedia. Silver  seren C 18:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:N reads "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right" (emphasis mine). I think it is fair to interpret that as passing WP:NBASE is enough, and I disagree with your comments about what the closure should or shouldn't do. NemesisAT (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is because of the presumed notability of the SNGs. Read the first line at the top of WP:NBASE (which is actually WP:NSPORT), "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." Every article on Wikipedia has to meet the WP:GNG. That is how notability is determined on Wikipedia. The only purpose of the SNGs is to give presumed notability that an article subject would meet the GNG. But if an actual search for sources finds that to be wrong, then the GNG is failed, as is the SNG and its presumed notability. Silver  seren C 19:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen people argue the other way with WP:NCORP. They say meeting GNG is not enough because the article must meet NCORP. So after reading these conflicting views, personally I'll stick to what it says at the top of WP:N which is that meeting either GNG or an SNG is enough. NemesisAT (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's because most of WP:NCORP specifies how the GNG should be interpreted for that topic area (what kinds of sources are acceptable for showing that an organisation meets the GNG). WP:NSPORTS is very different, it explicitly sets out criteria which are supposed to indicate the subject is likely to meet the GNG and doesn't pretend that they automatically make something notable.  Hut 8.5  19:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Silver seren I never understand why editors becomes so invested in a deletion. Like your comments, telling a closer to dismiss rationales that do not shout demand we scrub this article from the project. A phrase comes to mind: You don't have to blow out my candle to make yours glow brighter. You have made your rationale clear, now you demand in bold that the closer jettisons this article and poor Jones into oblivion. Let's move on. Lightburst (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Notable, schmotable, this is not an article about Mr Jones. It's an article about a single game of baseball played on 30 April 1885.  We've published that article under Jones' name, but if we changed the title to what the article's actually about, then suddenly the whole matter becomes incredibly clear: a description of one baseball game can't survive as a separate article.  Of course, we could change its scope to focus more on Mr Jones, but at that point our article is about one person's role in a game of baseball played on 30 April 1885.  So I think we've exhausted all the alternatives to deletion.  Delete.  —S Marshall</b> T/C 22:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Restore redirect If someone played one game and no one bothered to even record his first name, there's inherently a lack of notability. The concept that playing a single game – significant coverage be damned – means automatic notability is misguided and antithetical to encyclopedic standards. While playing in Major League Baseball today may give a presumption of coverage, it's intellectually lazy to equate that level of skill and experience to an amateur who stood in once in 1885, and NBASE is irrelevant. User:S Marshall is correct: this is not a biographical article and there is no basis to apply notability as such: it's a mere statistic of one player in one game. Reywas92Talk 02:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You've got to be kidding me - Delete/redirect The true gymnastics of the absurdity of this article and the blatant OR (namely WP:SYNTH) violations are astounding. He played one baseball game, and the only things known about him are what he did during that game. The substance of this article about him can be boiled down to a mere two sentences: "A new man covered third base for the local team. He is an amateur, and gave his name as "Jones."" Defensively, Jones recorded two putouts and four assists. When batting, Jones had one hit at four at bats, for a batting average of .250. The rest is all fluff about the teams or the match, not about our anonymous protagonist. Maybe an article ought be written about this particularly baseball game. This is WP:1EVENT at best and simple trivia at worst. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.