Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kris Harvey (2nd nomination)


 * 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. A clear consensus, even after a re-list, that GNG is met (which is a stronger bar than SNG). (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Kris Harvey
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was previosuly nominated for deletion, the outcome of which was "no consensus". Nine years later, the subject is no longer playing professional baseball and fails to meet WP:NBASE. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - doesn't meet WP:NBASE, but the sources that were uncovered in the prior AfD are enough to establish that he meets GNG. Even if not, this should be merged to his father's article where he is mentioned, possibly with partial merge, rather than deleted. Rlendog (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * comment Clearly fails WP:NBASEBALL. I also don't think that the usual reporting of transactions for minor league players shows the GNG is met. While I see nothing to convince me he should have his own article. However, a redirect to his father's article would be OK with me.Sandals1 (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not reporting of a minor league transaction. While this and this are mostly behind a paywall, they do not appear to be mere reporting of a minor league transaction. Rlendog (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG as per the first AFD. Here is a relevant Quote: this comment from Dodger67 about subject-specific notability guidelines: an SNG can never be used to exclude a subject that meets GNG. An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It's true that GNG trumps SNG, but it's not clear to me that GNG is met. Rlendog's articles are local coverage. For example, the first one mentioned is on the first day of the ACC tournament and is right next to a similar article on the starting pitcher for South Carolina.  Not a minor league transaction but typical coverage for local sports teams. The second article mentioned is coverage about him having a choice now that he's graduating from high school (college or pro ball) and that he has the guidance of his father, a former major leaguer.  The third article is another North Carolina paper article about him being part of the family business of playing pro ball.  I don't think this coverage is enough to meet GNG.  Much of it projects him on the same career track as his father and thus is WP:CRYSTALBALL.  The fact that he never went higher than AA in 8 season is why we actually need accomplishments not local paper routine coverage, puffery, and expectations.  I'd be inclined to redirect this article to the one on his father since I think the GNG argument is weak and much of the coverage is linked to his father. Papaursa (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Rlendog's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG and therefore WP:SNG is an unnecessary argument. Wm335td (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2019 (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.