Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitch Haniger


 * 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)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Mitch Haniger
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor league baseball player, who fails WP:MLB/N immediately. Best case of stub in club's minor league players article, but not stand alone article currently. If MLB appearance is made, then recreate. PROD removed on claim to WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe the coverage from AZ Central, MLB.com, The Tribune, The Birmingham News, and Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (these are just a few examples) are sufficient to establish GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please Note: Above user is the one who contested the PROD, as well as created the original article and seems to be the only major contributor. GauchoDude (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How does this bear on the discussion? Rlendog (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per above stated reasons. GauchoDude (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The nomination is your delete vote, you don't need to add this on top of that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Not a run of the mill type player that clearly passes GNG to me.--Yankees10 18:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Curious as to how you define a non run of the mill player. He's not even a top 100-150 prospect, let alone a Major League player.  And that's per MLB.com, Baseball America, ESPN/Keith Law (req sub), Fangraphs, Baseball Prospectus, Minor League Ball/John Sickels, etc. GauchoDude (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Run of the mill players don't get the level of coverage Haniger has received. He may not be a "top 100-150 prospect", but he's still a prospect and has received coverage from multiple publications as a result of his on-field accomplishments. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * delete no MLB appearances. Only a minor league player, thousands of them scattered through history and undeserving of an encyclopedic article. 1st round pick which could predict future MLB success but wiki is not WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing done yet to become article worthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.104.176 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep While he does not meet WP:MLB/N, he has received significant coverage in multiple mainstream media outlets, as set forth in the article and in Muboshgu's comments above so as to pass WP:GNG. The standard under GNG is not whether you, me or anyone else would subjectively view him as "run of the mill."  GNG is an objective standard, and multiple independent media outlets have exercised their editorial judgment in determining that he is noteworthy.  That is what matters under GNG. Cbl62 (talk)
 * Keep - meets WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Solid !vote for keeping this article based on significant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. I would like to compliment Muboshgu: that's what significant coverage is supposed to look like in a GNG discussion.  Several solid feature articles about the subject in mainstream news and sports publications -- not stats sites, not recruiting sites, not draft prospects sites, not random one and two-sentence mentions, not WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage that mentions the subject's game performance or even quotes the subject, not obscure minor league sports sites.  I would also like to endorse the comments of Cbl62 above: GNG is an objective standard based on the quality and depth of media coverage, not based on the MLB prospects of the athlete.  If significant coverage is there, the subject is notable for Wikipedia purposes.  If the coverage is marginal, other factors including common sense can (and arguably should) come into play.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as a WP:GNG pass per Muboshgu, Cbl62, and Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as the general notability guidelines have been met. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2014 (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.