Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2006 Seattle Mariners draft picks


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

List of 2006 Seattle Mariners draft picks

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Whole pages for a team's draft seems like overkill. Is there any reason one particular team's draft is notable? If we made pages for every team in every draft, it would be full of red links and unlinked names, with only a few real links. Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Sorry but your arguments are WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Neither are a valid reason to delete the article. Not only that but the article in question is well sourced and has RS's to back it up.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 17:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I wasn't finished with the listing actually. In addition to bundling these other pages, I was refining my argument as based on notability.  The list of 40 or 50 players a team drafts in a given year, half of whom won't sign (plus half of those who sign won't ever make the majors) is not notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless, my !vote is still keep. Belive it or not, the article is notable IMHO.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 18:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a valid opinion (I AfD'd this instead of PROD'ng it for a reason), but in my opinion this grouping is too trivial to merit an article. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I understand your POV as well. It does seem a bit trivial but It just does'nt make since to delete the whole lot. Perhaps a bigger list can be made like List of Seattle Mariners draft picks (2006-2009) or something along those lines that would encompas more than one year.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 20:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR, but this seems like an issue that should be discussed at WP:NSPORT in general, to decide if such articles are desirable at all (as we could repeat this exercise for each team, each year, in the NFL, the NHL, etc.), etc.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, though WP:NSPORT seems to be more concerned with individuals, rather than lists. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It can't hurt to try some discussion there, or to bring it up at WP:SPORT otherwise.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  —Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with White Shadows' comments. The page was created after a deletion of a page about New York Yankees' draft picks (not created by me) so I thought it was a good idea to create some as a test subject. The idea was to see if the pages would take off and people who followed other teams would create pages like them for their teams. However, that has not been the case. I think a compromise could be forged. How about merging the list into the teams' season article under a header "Draft" (e.g. List of 2006 Seattle Mariners draft picks to 2006 Seattle Mariners season)? I think we should see what discussion brings up before we compromise, but it sounds reasonable on my side. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, in further cases involving my work, please alert me. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Having some time, I would like to go over why the article meets notability. First and foremost, the article is well referenced and incorporates reliable sources. Second, WP:GNG is met as the subject of the article (Mariners' picks) receives "significant coverage", is "reliable", the article cites "sources", the article is "independent of the subject", and is "presumed". The basis of your argument seems to be personal opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, nothing you state is based on guidelines. Also, the argument that there are not other teams' articles is a WP:WAX argument. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Chiming in on the IP's comments, I don't see how it classifies as a "directory" (per WP:NOTDIR). They are not "loosely related" (as they were all selected by the Mariners), they are not "enealogical entries", they are not yellow or white pages, they are not a "resource for conducting business", they are not "sales catalogs", they are not "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations", and they are not "a complete exposition of all possible details". --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the seven examples of WP:NOTDIR are illustrations of what "not a directory" means, not the be-all and end-all of it. See WP:IINFO: merely being true and verifiable is not sufficient for inclusion. The complete list of draft picks is indiscriminate, as most entries are not notable, and the fact of them being drafted falls under old news report, WP:NOTNEWS. Still, I believe a more appropriate place for discussion would be something like WP:NSPORT, where the notability of drafts choices per team per year for all major sports league should be addressed once and for all.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIR is still not a sufficient argument for deletion as it has nothing to do with this case. Your bare-bones argument is that the subject in question is not notable and I have stated my belief that it is above. Also, stating that it viloates WP:NOTNEWS is incorrect. WP:NOTNEWS states that Wikipedia is no place for articles that are news reports or fictional works. The lists in question are not news articles, they are lists of draft picks by year made by the Seattle Mariners. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment-Since you mention a similar article that was deleted, I tried to find the log and couldn't. Could you point to the AfD or deletion log for that New York Yankees draft article? Why was that one deleted? Could it be that there is no significant coverage of the subject beyond the usual news report? All drafts will be covered in the media obviously, but I still don't see how that passes WP:N (just like WP:POLITICIAN guards against election candidates with no coverage outside the elections because they are also automatically mentioned in the media during elections). Right now the sources are a Baseball database (not significant coverage, only useful for verifiability, not notability), two cites from Major League Baseball which is not an independent source, including a press release, which is again, not sufficient to establish notability. All you have is one article about the draft but that is again, expected local coverage, not significant coverage by independent sources. My local paper regularly reports about pee-wee teams too, yet somehow pee-wee teams are not included in WP:NSPORT.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There can still be reliable sources that are not independent to the subject. MLB.com is considered a reliable source, though it is not independent. The basis of the article is not hinged on articles from MLB.com. A general reference is given from Baseball-Reference, a reliable and independent source. Your arguments are going completely off topic. If the article was only backed up on one non-independent source, that would be questionable, however, the article cites multiple sources so clearly the citations are not the issue. The article I was bringing up was entitled "Yankees Draft Picks" and the deletion discussion could be found here. The deletion was not on the basis that the notability of the subject was questionable; the basis was on the fact the article was written like a blog and was non-encyclopedic. The lists in question here do have encyclopedic value and meet the general notability guidelines. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It also seems you're questioning any sort of references; local or otherwise. Publications like The Seattle Times, and The New York Daily News are reliable beyond a local aspect. However, local coverage can still be considered reliable and can still be used to establish notability. Again, the article is not hinged on just local coverage and just unreliable sources. In fact, the article cites reliable and (for the most part) independent sources. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Does not seem "indiscriminate" to me - it's restricted to the draft selections made by one team within one year, and sorted by round. The players with standalone articles have blue links, and everyone else is plaintext. I think it's a quality treatment of a notable subject, supported by sources, and a perfectly encyclopedic topic for a paperless reference work to include. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. – Apart from the core policies of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V all of which this article passes with flying colors, the fundamental guideline here is WP:List. This is a List and thus must meet the basic tenants of the list guideline.
 * 1) The subject of list must in some way be notable. I think that Mariner’s Draft Choices has received sufficient independent 3rd party coverage to meet that test.
 * 2) The list content must be verifiable. Clearly the linked articles are, and the unlinked content is properly sourced.  If individual entries are not sourced properly, they can be removed.
 * 3) To deal with the claims of indiscrimate, ie. The complete list of draft picks is indiscriminate, as most entries are not notable, one should examine the Purpose of Lists and List Content guidelines of WP:List. On the purpose side, this list as it now stands accomplishes all three of the stated purposes of lists—navigation, information and development.  Clearly the linked articles are navigational.  Each entry is expanded with additional information-informational and the red-linked or unlinked entries are incentive for future development of new articles—development. Thus this list, quoting the guideline, Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information is a well organized list of information serving multiple purposes.  On the List Content question, the guideline is clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list.  I doubt seriously whether any reader would be confused as to what the inclusion criteria for this list is.  It is very well spelled out not only in the title, but the lead-in—Below is a complete list of the Seattle Mariners results from the June [2006] draft.  There is nothing indiscriminate about this list or its content.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2010 (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.