Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Manning


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 16:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Matt Manning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBASEBALL John from Idegon (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Article was created as a redirect to his father. Attempted to restore that but was reverted. John from Idegon (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect, per Nom. I liked your original redirect. I fully support going back to it. &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  14:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG already. None of the following sources are in the article at present: Sacramento Bee, MLB.com, The Athletic, MLive.com, Local Sports Journal, Lakeland Ledger, Detroit News, Detroit News again, MiLB.com, MiLB.com again, Detroit Free Press. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , : I put some work into the article. Would you like to reconsider? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , oh dear. That's a model level of clean-up right there. I am now Strong Keep due to these recent changes. Thank you so much for the quality edits! &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  18:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Plenty of sources. One of the top prospects in baseball also and likely to make his debut this year.-- Yankees10 19:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , please read or reread (whichever applies) WP:CRYSTALBALL. Thank you. &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  20:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of crystal ball, thanks. It was just an added point. Sourcing is the main reason why it should be kept.-- Yankees10 20:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - there is not GNG here. None of the articles discuss him in detail. None. And the SNG is clear, it does not kick in until he plays in the bigs. John from Idegon (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , have you read any of the articles? How can you say that none of them discuss him in detail? Did you perform WP:BEFORE? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Detroit Tigers minor league players I explain this in far more reasoning here, including why the sourcing doesn't really help him clear GNG as is being argued, but the community has decided that being a baseball prospect (even a really good one) isn't worthy of inclusion. This makes sense when 1/3 of 1st round picks like Manning never make the majors. We have no deadline, let's make sure that we reach a point where manning will be worthy of being thought of in 10 years, by letting him clear the SNG bar. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're speaking in generalities about prospects, but this is a discussion about one specific prospect. Have you read these sources? Because they don't present run of the mill coverage. Your essay doesn't apply to a case where the subject has sourcing like this, covering his life in detail. One third of first round picks don't make the majors, but that's a misleading stat. Most of those two thirds who don't make the majors have flamed out or are still struggling in the low minors at this point in their careers. Manning just had his best season. Barring a major injury or an unforseen collapse, Manning will be a major leaguer, as early as 2019. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read that some of that coverage, and skimmed the rest. I have also read similar coverage about literally dozens of other prospects. I enjoy reading it. I'm a baseball fan. That doesn't make Manning notable in a Wikipedia sense and in fact the prevalence of such coverage is at the core of why I argue we should give greater deference to the criteria of SNG. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , GNG supersedes SNGs in all cases. You don't think that 18 sources cited inline, most of them having significant depth, plus one further reading source, plus all of the other ones I didn't add to the article, meets GNG? Fine, that's your opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that GNG supersedes the SNG which is why I wrote an entire essay about how GNG looks so great in these situations at first blush but really isn't - too long to repeat at AfD. The 17 sources linked are exactly the kind that highly touted draft picks receive, they are simply not special. If Manning fails to reach the major league we will likely not care about him in 10 years. Notability is not temporary and the kind of sustained coverage necessary to qualify for notability is not met by an otherwise unexceptional first round draft pick like Manning. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , how much do we care about someone who played briefly in the major leagues over ten years ago? Yet, they meet notability. How much we are likely to "care" about Manning whether or not he makes the majors in the future seems like an odd rationale to support deletion. It's the quality of the sourcing that matters, and his has been sustained since his high school days. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well we seem to care a fair amount about Aaron Bates who played in 5 games 1 season 10 years ago. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'll add I can find a bunch other one season wonders from that season covered on Wikipedia in some level of depth:      and those were just the first six Baseball Reference told me who only played that season. Some of those players had clear and decisive outcomes on major league games. Others not as much. Are you aware of any players who played in the minors in 2009, never reached the majors, and who still have Wikipedia articles? Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Matt Manning's article currently has better sourcing than Aaron Bates', and Bates is a MLB coach at present. There are plenty of MiLB-only players with Wiki bios, including some that I've written. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree there are some MiLB only players. My question is can you show any MiLB only players from 10 years ago that survive today. I see such players get PRODed successfully regularly and it is my contention that routine coverage of 1st round draft picks simply doesn't provide longterm permanent notability. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to do this because this WP:OTHERSTUFF issue has nothing to do with Manning, but Brien Taylor, Matt Harrington, Ty Hensley, Ntema Ndungidi, Ryan Westmoreland, and Jackson Melián come to mind. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that Brien Taylor is a GA-class Wikipedia article, too. So much for "no one caring" about prospects who never play in MLB. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Fails WP:BASEBALL but sourcing is enough to pass WP:GNG. The issue isn't whether prospects in general are notable, it's whether this one is. Smartyllama (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG, which trumps WP:NBASE. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG. There is no consensus that prospects aren't worthy of inclusion, only that prospects who don't pass GNG shouldn't be included. Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 13 February 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.