Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Lieppman


 * 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   delete. v/r - TP 20:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Keith Lieppman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable baseball executive. He was never a "commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager" in the majors, meaning he fails WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BASE/N, note 4. - Bkid Talk/Contribs 05:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect, WP:BASE/N doesn't override WP:GNG. WP:BASE/N is a shortcut to notability, not an additional requirement on top of WP:GNG. — NY-13021 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Hmm, after a Google search, I couldn't find any significant coverage articles about the subject -- all I found are statistics and some mirror sites. As such, the article fails WP:GNG. I had problems determining if the article complies with WP:BASE/N or not. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete He wasn't even mentioned in Moneyball. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He was mentioned in the acknowledgments: "Keith Lieppman and Ted Polakowski, who must have wondered why I so longed to pester their minor league players, instead helped me to do it." — NY-13021 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, he is mentioned in the acknowledgments. However, he isn't mentioned once in the text of the book itself. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A quick Google search shows several dozen interviews of this guy, and a Google News search yields 5 current articles and almost 800 hits in the archives. Unless WP:BASE/N now overrides WP:GNG, this seems like a case of sources being missing from the Wiki page rather than being non-existent. NY-13021 (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:GOOGLEHITS. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read it. I've also read WP:AFD, item D, which is a step a lot of people around here seem to be skipping before making these nominations. — NY-13021 (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted." – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, and you expect us to believe you read through all 792 Google News hits and decided none were sufficient to meet WP:GNG? — NY-13021 (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:ROUTINE coverage only. "Minor league first- and third baseman and manager, and Major League farm system official." Exactly. I imagine that he's a perfectly nice fellow, but why the need for an encyclopedia entry? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Routine coverage? The first page of a Google search yields three different interviews specifically of Lieppman on BaseballProspectus.com and Scout.com, two of the biggest sports sites on the internet. Page two shows coverage in the Washington Times and San Francisco Chronicle. Page three has links to CSN Chicago and CSN Bay Area detailing an award won by Lieppman in 2009 for lifetime achievement. Then, clicking on the Google News Archive link, I get 792 results, for a guy whose baseball career started 25 years before the internet was in wide use. This guy has received a lot more than "routine coverage". — NY-13021 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I repeat, why the need for an encyclopedia entry? The GNews hits do seem to follow a pattern, don't they?... "And now for the inside scoop on the A's minor league prospects, let's talk to one of their execs." I realize we disagree on this point, but I don't see how such stories do much to establish his notability, which is WP:NOTINHERITED from his minor leaguers. And please don't throw the sheer number of Google hits into the equation--sports in general and baseball in particular generate more ephemeral, routine notices than the weather. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The "need for an encyclopedia entry" isn't the issue; his eligibility is the issue — and, per WP:GNG, he seems to be eligible. Being a subject-matter expert, such as Lieppman being quoted dozens of times per year about baseball players, isn't the same thing as "inheriting" notability. — NY-13021 (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure he is quoted dozens of times per year about baseball players who work for his employer. And I imagine that McDonalds employs someone who fields questions about their burgers, and that this person finds their way into x number of stories as a result. I don't consider that such stories are worth much as RS to justify a WP article on the McDonalds spokesman, either. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an incorrect comparison. Lieppman isn't being quoted as a spokesman; he's quoted as a subject-matter expert. But even if we entertain your comparison, if this hypothetical McDonald's spokesman were to win a national award that resulted in national media coverage of the spokesman himself, just as Lieppman won an MLB award that was covered by the major outlets mentioned above, then that would pass WP:GNG, wouldn't it? Maybe it's in the eyes of the beholder, but articles like this, this, and this seem more than routine to me. — NY-13021 (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the 1st article. However, the 2nd is published by Minor League Baseball, and thus isn't really independent coverage.  And the 3rd is a blog; it may be the type of blog that can be considered a reliable source, but even if it is, I would not be comfortable keeping on the basis of a single article plus a short blog post.  If there are a few more like the first however, I think keeping would be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 04:10, 7 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.