Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Roth (baseball)


 * 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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Michael Roth (baseball)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article does not meet the criteria set down in Notability (sports), specifically the baseball section. A college player who was selected low in the 2011 MLB draft, but did not sign. References are primarily local news, no sign of significant wide coverage of the subject. A discussion at DYK is ongoing regarding this, and two other articles, which has stalled. I have listed all three articles here to generate some proper discussion on the topic, so that it can be decided once and for all in the proper manner. (Discussion: Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Roth (baseball), Jason Krizan, Cody Martin (baseball))  Harrias  talk 11:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 3.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  11:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator and DYK nominator Sufficient coverage to meet GNG, which does not require national news. From WP:ITSLOCAL: "Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline requires multiple sources independent of the subject to cover the subject in order to establish notability. But this guideline does not specify the locality of the coverage." Besides, he gained national recognition for starring in the College World Series in consecutive years. His coverage exceeds Run-of-the-mill. These articles have multiple sources independent of the subject. It shouldn't matter that they don't meet NSPORTS, they meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep the question is whether any of the national coverage is more than routine game summaries or statistical summaries. Note that WP:GNG requires that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". This is the type of article that I personally would like to see kept but that fails WP:ATHLETE. There is no consensus on WP that being an All-American confers permanent notability for college baseball players. There was a time when this article would have until the end of the season the following his final collegiate year to meet either ATHLETE or GNG. I am leaning toward saying that this article has sufficient depth to meet GNG at this time. However, the biographical sketch is thin. The benefit to wikipedia is retention of encyclopedic detail. If the article result is deletion, maybe we could agree to hold this in the article incubator until the end of September 2012 out of respect for the old policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge This is a well-written article but I don't see how the subject is any more notable than any of the dozens if not hundreds of college and minor league players who've been deleted or merged. Just about every good Division I player in a major sport has received coverage like this in local or regional outlets. (Ditto for minor leaguers.) — NY-13021 (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NCOLLATH, Roth has "gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team", which is demonstrated by his All-American status.--TM 18:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not sure WP:NCOLLATH is meant to imply that all all-americans are necessarily notable, and some of the coverage seems somewhat weak, but I think there is enough coverage to get over the WP:GNG bar. Rlendog (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Tony, but I think the keep argument is substantially stronger. Lord Roem (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2012 (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.