Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Machado


 * 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. A close call, but just on the "delete" side. I note from NSPORT that he clearly fails to meet 1-5; 6 would indicate that even if he was to play in the minor leagues he would not be inherently notable, and 7: "7.Some minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players" --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Manny Machado

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails NSPORT
 * High school athlete article nominated both for WP:CSD and WP:PROD. Fails all seven criteria of Wikipedia:NSPORT#Baseball. #7 specifically states, "Some minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players (for example, Minnesota Twins minor league players). Please note that such mini-bios should cite reliable sources and conform with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP". --moreno oso (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:NSPORTS#Baseball says they are notable if they meet one criterion, but it does NOT say that they are not notable if they fail to. Higher in the page (NSPORT) it mentions, "A person  is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[1]  secondary source material  which is reliable, intellectually independent,[2]  and independent of the subject.[3]"  I believe the references to ESPN.com, Baseball America, etc. satisfy this beyond the threshold noted in criterion 7 of Wikipedia:NSPORT#Baseball.  Mickeyg13 (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep He will be drafted tomorrow making him notable enough for an article--Yankees10 20:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete He probably will be drafted, and so will 1,500 or more people. The MLB draft is large because the teams are filling the needs of their entire organization, including the farm clubs.  Notability if he makes it into an MLB game.   Mandsford 20:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes 1,500 more people will be drafted. But Machado is considered a top 5 pick and will almost certainly be drafted there, and top 5 picks are and should be notable enough for articles.--Yankees10 20:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Currently isn't notable. Being drafted isn't enough to make someone notable.  Maybe the #1 pick is notable though. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. --  Eagles   24/7   (C)  20:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  --  Eagles   24/7   (C)  21:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete It's iffy... I don't like creating these articles before a player is even drafted. I remember a bunch of pages being quickly created for the 2009 draft class as that was going on.  I think that we need to consult WP:BASEBALL to form some sort of consensus here, as there is considerable talk about draft prospects.  Most of these kids are just too far away from the show, though. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed Jameson Taillon has an article now. It's also questionable. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 *  Strong Keep He has received significant coverage as a high school player. While it's speculation to say where he will be drafted, it is verifiable that many experts have speculated that he will be drafted incredibly high.  Yes it's true that about 1500 players will be drafted, but they didn't all have this type of coverage.  ESPN, Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus, MLB.com etc. don't all have coverage of all those 1500 players, but the handful that they deem the very best are notable.  So I think he meets notability before getting drafted based upon the coverage he has received.  Note that these arguments are before the draft has even occurred.  If he does get drafted in the top 5 then that adds a point of notability that can no longer be overlooked.Mickeyg13 (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a clear case of one editor creating an article way too soon, and another editor nominating it way too soon. Hey, where's the fire?  The creator of the articles relied on this which describes Taillon and Machado as being speculated as among the first five people to be picked in the 2010 draft.  Before someone hollers WP:CRYSTAL, we'll know what happened on MONDAY -- tomorrow for those of us who live in North America, already "today" for the folks out east.  I'm striking the delete.  Striking my delete vote; I don't intend to worry about WP:GNG until tomorrow.  Mandsford 01:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As you pointed out, it is verifiable that they are being projected as such, and that right there is notable even if they don't actually get drafted there. Mickeyg13 (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Question Why is the "top 5" this magic number to make someone notable? Why not top 6, or top 10?  The fact is, if this player never makes the MLB, he won't be notable.  It happens all the time in the NFL.  Players get articles based on "draft projections" and the articles are deleted when they've never played in a game.  This player is simply not notable at this time. And if he IS drafted in the Top 5, that isn't any reason to close this AFD as "keep". — X96lee15 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that "top 5" is magical, but more that it is very, very high. Being drafted #1 is most definitely notable, and being drafted #1500 is not per se.  There's a continuum between the two; we can quibble over the exact cutoff but I would think top 10 or so would certainly meet that criteria.  Even though some of these guys may never play in the Majors, I think that 20 years from now they will still be notable as high draft picks.  So once they do get drafted I don't see how one would say they aren't notable.  Now there likely will be players drafted in the top 10 or so that did not receive this kind of hype; for them we have to wait until they are actually drafted to create an article.  But Bryce Harper, Manny Machado, and Jameson Taillon (perhaps a few others) received enough coverage before the draft that they warrant inclusion regardless of where they are actually selected.  Mickeyg13 (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Regardless of WP:WPBB/N, the article (in my opinion) meets the general notability guidelines. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

must Keep: this is an article i went through yesterday and this has helped me a lot as this contain's an important part of our syllabus. And i was fortunate to get it in Wiki. though it seemed to be an essay but this could really help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tridibbhowmik (talk • contribs) 07:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)  — Tridibbhowmik (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment It's worth noting that being a first round draft choice is not synonymous with becoming a major league baseball.  Out of the first ten players selected in the 2009 MLB draft, three-- Stephen Strasburg, Mike Leake and Drew Storen have earned themselves a spot in a future edition of The Baseball Encyclopedia, so that might need to be revisited.  Although it seems that there's a project afoot to make shrines to people simply because they have been drafted, I think it's fair to say that with one exception, nobody remembers you simply for being drafted.  First place is an accomplishment.  Anything else is trivial.  Good luck to Manny tonight.  Mandsford 21:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete He hasn't even signed with the team yet, let alone gotten to the majors. Only one with inherent notability would've been Bryce Harper. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 00:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm with Wizard above, the #1 pick is notable (mainly because they're #1) the rest are not, they're just one of hundreds of minor league players. --MrRadioGuy P T C E 01:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Many people are acting as if someone is either the #1 pick, and thus notable, or one of the other 1499 guys who probably won't make the majors. Frankly that's an arbitrary cutoff to say that only the #1 pick is notable.  It is quite notable to be say the #3 pick EVEN IF HE FAILS TO MAKE THE MAJORS.  These guys receive significant media coverage from independent sources for this.  They then either go on to MLB success, making them notable, or they are considered busts, making them notable for a different reason.  Pick #742 needs to do something more than just get drafted to be notable, but the guys that receive significant hype before the draft (about 3 of them) and the guys that actually do get drafted high (maybe 10-20 or so; we needn't quibble over the precise cutoff) are notable even if they flop (or even because they flop in some instances).  You can't just say because he's not #1 that he's not notable.  Mickeyg13 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking through the top draft picks for the last 20 years, there are plenty of top-10 and top-3 picks that never made the big leagues. Of course there's going to be coverage of top players (the MLB draft is a big deal), but I don't think that draft-only coverage is enough to make a person notable.  The #1 draftee is notable, but anything other than that isn't. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * People keep bringing up the fact that lots of top draft picks never make the Majors. This is not disputed, nor is it relevant.  Manny Machado might never make it to the Majors; he might still be sufficiently notable as to warrant a Wikipedia article.  Please explain why the #1 draft pick is automatically notable while others aren't.  We surely agree that pick #1 is notable and pick #1500 is not per se.  Surely you also agree that pick #2 is more notable than pick #1500.  So there is obviously some sort of continuum for notability regarding draft picks.  It then seems quite strange to me that you would argue the cutoff happens to fall just between that of the #1 pick and #2 pick.  That would imply there is either some huge discontinuity between their relative notabilities or that the #1 pick just barely rises above the notability threshold.  Neither seems likely to me.  It would seem to make more sense if this cutoff were further down the list...perhaps those outside of the top 10 or outside of the first round.  You can't just automatically shut the door at #1.  There are lots of reputable sources establishing the notability of these top few guys.  Perhaps the article should go into more detail about this, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted.  Nobody is trying to argue that these guys are locks for the Majors or that all 1500 drafted players deserve articles. Mickeyg13 (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the #1 pick is notable, just because it's the #1 pick. I think ANY of the other 1,499 draft picks COULD be notable (for whatever reason).  However, I think the coverage Machado has received is only as being a top player in the draft, not because he's unique and notable.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are Manny Machados every year in the MLB draft and this one is no more notable than any of the other similar top-5 players in previous drafts. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - regardless of the fact that he was a top 3 draft pick, here are some noteworthy articles in third-party reliable sources focusing on Machado: USA Today Sports Illustrated Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (note that Pittsburgh wasn't the team that ended up drafting him). ugen64 (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment If it is decided that the article should be deleted, I think that it should be re-directed to the Baltimore Orioles minor league players, with the info on Machado at that article.--Yankees10 17:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment That would be a good compromise, as Machado's info and history would be retained, and he could be spun back out if he gets into an Orioles game. Looking at prior drafts, the crystal ball is cloudy on whether someone will be making more than WP:NEWS after draft day.  As noted before, only 3 of the first ten choices in 2009 MLB draft have made the big leagues, while Dustin Ackley (#2), Donavan Tate (#3), Tony Sanchez (#4), Matt Hobgood (#5), Zachary Wheeler (#6), Mike Minor (#7), and Jacob Turner (#9) have not.  In the 2008 MLB Draft, only three of ten have played in the big leagues, and the #1, #2 and #3 choices -- Tim Beckham, Pedro Alvarez and Eric Hosmer haven't (Hosmer's article got redirected to a list of K.C. Royals minor league players, while Beckham truly would be notable as the first pick overall).  Kyle Shipworth (#6), Yonder Alonso (#7), Aaron Crow (#9) and Jason Castro (#10) haven't yet made it either.  Bryce Harper will be remembered for being #1 in the draft this year, whether he ever plays big league ball.  There's no guarantee on the others.  Mandsford 17:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, looking at the 2008 and 2009 top draft picks is particularly irrelevant since many of them will still make the Majors but just haven't done so yet. More importantly though, nobody disputes that some of these guys will fail to make the Majors.  I believe that more players than just #1 (i.e. Bryce Harper) are sufficiently notable to rise above the threshold of WP:NOT. Mickeyg13 (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable yet. Merge/redirect is not a good option at this point because he is not in the Orioles farm system at this point. The guy hasnt even signed yet. Spanneraol (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Baseball guidelines do not trump general notability guidelines. The subject meets the latter standard. -- Pink Bull  05:05, 13 June 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.