Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Burgess (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The balance of arguments, analysis of available sources, and consensus on the status of bullpen catchers favor deletion. For the record, unless there is evidence that a specific AfD was started in bad faith, a nominator being blocked for other reasons after starting an AfD is not really relevant. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Pat Burgess
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears that Mellowed has been blocked indef, is no longer an editor in good standing, and that therefore his !vote does not count. Epeefleche (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC) I have never seen any such policy applied in XfD discussions, short of someone getting blocked for using sock-puppets to game the !vote.  To my knowledge, no such policy exists, and while Mellowed Fillmore is now blocked, it was at his own request after a block review by admin Floquenbeam.  Using Mellowed Fillmore's intentionally enforced retirement to discredit this or any other XfD he initiated smacks of gaming the system.  Please consider deleting your comment above.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. He is not a Wikipedian. We don't count !votes of non-Wikipedians. Beyond that, it distorts the issue to suggest that non-Wikipedians who have been indef blocked -- after they have engaged in intentional high-volume vandalism, and after they have edited from multiple accounts (though they choose not to reveal the account names) -- should have a !vote at a process that is reserved for Wikipedians. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no such policy, Epee. Period.  You just made all of that up out of whole cloth.  If there is such a policy, please link to it now.  Mellowed Fillmore was an editor in good standing at the time this AfD was initiated, and there has never been any insinuation that he engaged in sock-puppetry.  Ever.  No closing admin will ever accept what you are trying to do here: it is very bad gamesmanship.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You disagree that "Articles for deletion is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted"? You assert that I made "all that" up out of whole cloth? Are you joking? And if you are not sure you are correct that I made up that "Articles for deletion is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted," then why would you say it as though it is fact? And the issue of course is whether he is an editor in good standing at the close, since that is when we weigh !votes.
 * And he made hundreds of vandal edits, in one day. There is zero question about that.
 * And where do you come off simply making up that "there has never been any insinuation he engaged in sock-puppetry." He edited from multiple accounts. But they chose not to reveal the account names.
 * And where do you come off accusing me of gamesmanship. I haven't even as yet (and may not) !voted in this AfD. And my statements are accurate. And yours are baseless loud bluster. Epeefleche (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Again, Epee, please link to the Wikipedia policy you are seeking to enforce.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you answer my question. You -- btw, does AGF not apply to you? -- accuse me above of making up that "Articles for deletion is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." Is that really your position? I'm shocked. Be clear here -- I don't want you to weasel out, saying, "well, what I meant was, let me wikilawyer a little bit, etc." You made that statement. Flouting wp:AGF. (As well as a number of other strongly worded assertions I have a problem with, but first things first). You stand by it?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Again, Epee, please link to the policy you seek to enforce -- having requested this three times, I assume there is no such policy.  And, no, AGF has nothing to do with it.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh. So, now you are retreating. From "You made it up" to "Where is it?" Here's a suggestion -- don't bluster bullshit. It doesn't help WP discussions (apart from the fact of how it makes you look). Where you don't know, just say it. Where you have a question, ask.  And oh -- go to the top of this page.  Where it says "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion". Click. Once. Read the first sentence. Where it states: "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." And furthermore -- I know you proudly for some reason trumpet that you are a lawyer. But pleeeeeze, spare us any weasely wikilawyering on this. Now you can respond to my other points as well, as how you think someone who committed hundreds of edits and was indef blocked and said they edited from multiple accounts is an editor in good standing at the time !votes are tallied. Sheeeeeesh. Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Gee whiz, Epee, you quote a passage from WP:AfD as if it says "blocked editors !votes don't count."  It says no such thing.  And you don't have to be a "lawyer" or "wikilawyer" to recognize that; you just have to be able to read English.  I've made my point: there is no such policy that !votes of blocked editors don't count.  Sorry.  The rest is on you.  Feel free to call me a "weasely wikilawyer", but you're still wrong.  BTW, you may also want to review WP:CIVIL -- that is an actual policy.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous. I wrote that "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. He is not a Wikipedian." You wrongly (and yes - uncivilly, as well as officiously) accused me of stating a mis-truth, writing: "You just made all of that up out of whole cloth." But as you can see, I stated the truth. And your accusation was a blow-hardy mis-truth, attacking through falsehood my integrity. And, oh -- I happened to notice you didn't even apologize yet.

This editor is indef blocked. For over 200 intentional vandal edits. Just this week. He has also edited from multiple accounts.

As much as you view his !vote as worthy of consideration, we do not give weight to non-Wikipedians editors. There is no exception for "former-editors-who-were-indefinitely-blocked-for-200-vanda-edits-and-operated-multiple-accounts." Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

''The following comments were copied and pasted from Epeefleche's user talk page. I tried to take this digression there; unfortunately, he simply deleted those comments, with a dismissive edit summary'':. That's unfortunate Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Epeefleche, let's be perfectly clear what this is about: as much as you would like there to be, there is no Wikipedia policy that requires an editor's AfD or other discussion !votes be invalidated or otherwise disregarded when that editor is blocked.


 * The introductory sentence of WP:AfD which you quoted, "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted," is a general statement of AfD's purpose. In no part of WP:AfD does it mention invalidating, discounting or otherwise disregarding an editor's !vote because the editor is subsequently blocked.


 * Nowhere in WP:AfD does it require that AfD discussion participants be "Wikipedians in good standing". Nowhere, sir.  In fact, we permit IP users to participate in AfD discussions, but we may apply a healthy degree of skepticism if the IP user or newly registered editor has no edit history prior to the start of the AfD discussion.


 * As for Mellowed Fillmore, several things you said are clearly exaggerations by you or misunderstandings on your part. MF was a productive editor under that user name for approximately 7 months, at the rate of about 500 edits per month, participating heavily in baseball-related AfDs.  There was no hint of serious behavior problems before May 26, and MF had no prior block history.


 * In his ANI swansong, MF said "As I have stated before, this is not my first account. While I am not going to divulge prior identities, I have made tens of thousands of edits over a multi-year period."  There is nothing wrong with having had a succession of registered Wikipedia accounts.  Nothing at all.  It's only a problem when an editor uses multiple accounts, undisclosed, at the same time and in order to gain some discussion !voting advantage or to commit some other form of misconduct.  That's sock-puppetry.  Contrary to your assertions, however, there is absolutely no evidence that MF engaged in sock-puppetry with his current account, nor with any previous account that he may have had, and his quoted statement in no way implies that he did.  The checkuser that was run on his present account found no such evidence; otherwise he would have been blocked for sock-puppetry.  Of course, you know a little something about the definition of sock-puppetry:.


 * You rhetorically said "As much as you view his !vote as worthy of consideration, we do not give weight to non-Wikipedians editors." That is simply incorrect.  Please read WP:AfD in its entirety.  The closing administrator is supposed to weigh the relative strength of arguments, including the application of any policies and guidelines cited by discussion participants.  WP:AfD does mention that the opinions of the article creator and other contributors with potential conflicts of interest may be discounted, as well as any newly registered editors or IP users who have not edited prior to the start of the AfD.  WP:AfD says nothing about striking the !votes of discussion participants who are blocked for problems unrelated to the AfD, as much as might want to read that into the first sentence of WP:AfD which you repeatedly quoted.


 * I do not condone MF's "vandalism" spree, if that's what you want to call adding a couple hundred AfD discussions to the baseball delete-sort. That said, there is no valid reason based in Wikipedia written policies to invalidate MF's !votes from a week before he was blocked, and acting as if there is, and investing insinuating non-existent sock-puppetry, etc., is just plain silly.


 * That's all I have to say about this. I don't expect you to accept my explanation, given your vehement reaction in the AfD discussion but I've given you a road map above if you have an open mind to follow it.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

End of comments copied and pasted from Epeefleche's user talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to closing administrator: the hatted discussion above is about Epeefleche's demand that nominator Mellowed Fillmore's !vote be disregarded because Mellowed Fillmore is blocked for issues unrelated to this AfD; please see ANI discussion here: ; and blocking admin's notation in the block log here: . Please note that Epeefleche's demand is not supported by any Wikipedia policy.  Thank you.   Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - search revealed nothing except there are a lot of people named Pat Burgess. Previous AfD discussion claimed he was a coach, but he's not listed at this roster. Article also does not claim he was ever a coach. —Мандичка YO 😜 23:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: per the previous AfD, since notability isn't temporary. It oughtn't be a huge surprise that a guy listed on a coaches' list last fall isn't a season later.  Nha Trang  Allons! 16:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The standard is GNG. If someone really was a major league coach in the 2010s (and this guy wasn't, your opinion notwithstanding), there really ought to be enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither your opinion or mine's at stake. The Colorado Rockies thought he was a coach, and theirs is the only opinion that matters worth a damn.  Nha Trang  Allons! 18:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * G.N.G. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at the archived version of the staff page from last October. Pat Burgess is not listed as a coach: his title is "Major League Operations Assistant/Bullpen Catcher." Claiming that he is a coach because he's in that table or because the page is titled "Coaching staff" is seriously sketch. Using that criteria, you could also claim that Vinny Castilla, special assistant, is a coach. —Мандичка YO 😜 12:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny you should say that: using that column for a guide (the one labeled "MANAGERS AND COACHES"), I'd claim exactly that. See, if the team didn't consider him so, he'd be in the next column down, the one labeled "Staff."  He isn't.  (Interestingly enough, the team's strength/conditioning coach IS.)  Honestly, it really doesn't matter what your opinion is or how sketchy you think it: the Colorado Rockies disagree with you. Given the choice between who a Major League Baseball team thinks ought to be called a coach and who a handful of Wikipedia editors think ought to be called one, I'll go with the MLB team ten times out of ten.  Nha Trang  Allons! 17:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a consensus that bullpen catchers don't qualify for the presumption of notability that more traditional coaches get. So if there are sources to support notability, those should be added (or at least demonstrated). Rlendog (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: as non-notable; fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit?  11:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources provided at Articles for deletion/Pat Burgess and in the article: this articleWebCite from MLB.com and this articleWebCite from The Denver Post. The former article provides substantial coverage of the subject, while the latter provides nontrivial coverage about him. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pat Burgess to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, does MLB.com count as an independent source when it comes to GNG or is it considered a primary source? do you have a consensus? (I'm not saying it shouldn't count for this article, but I would like to know for future info).  —Мандичка YO 😜 12:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of a discussion, although others may know better. Certainly mlb.com has been used at times, as has similar sites such as nhl.com for hockey.  My personal view is that it depends.  If the article is discussing a prospect, or other non-major leaguer, then I think it is independent.  If it is discussing a major leaguer, then I don't think it is fully independent, although personally I would give some "credit" for a substantial mlb.com article in a close case, since there is a probably significant gap between the institution of Major League Baseball and some marginally notable person associated with MLB.  But I would expect some other significant fully independent sources in such a case.  On the other hand, if a fully independent source picked up on the MLB article, then I would give full "credit." Rlendog (talk)
 * OK, thanks . It probably hasn't come up because people associated with these pro leagues typically already meet GNG through some other way. I think (like in the case of Burgess) if you need to rely on league-generated news to prove GNG, notability is pretty thin. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, we don't usually treat MLB.com, NBA.com, NFL.com, NHL.com, NCAA.com, team websites, college sports conferences, sports governing bodies such as AAU, FIBA, FIFA, FINA, IAAF, college newspapers, or any other source associated with a team, affiliated universities, conferences or league as "independent" for purposes of establishing notability. As mentioned by Rlendog, if a third-party independent media source re-publishes an MLB.com article, then I would then treat it as "independent"; that happens all the time.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I agree, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to get that solidified into a guideline for sports notability. The pro league and university articles are a treasure trove of info, and are reliable sources to reference information, but they're not truly independent sources. They churn out mass amounts of content related to their people, that is always going to be favorable to the institution and their interests, and anything negative is going to be absent or minimized. —Мандичка YO 😜 14:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. Alex (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * delete dubious claims based on flaky sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - League websites are not independent of the subject (in fact, they're extremely promotional in nature), and stats websites such as Baseball-Reference.com, are not treated as significant coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I disagreee about your interpretation of mlb.com. The majority of the feature articles (as opposed to the press releases) are written by beat reporters covering the teams and the articles all contain a disclaimer that specificaly states that "This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs." I would say the articles are reliable and independent and useable for this purpse. Spanneraol (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Query - Who employs the MLB.com "beat reporters?"  Do they work for third-party publications, and MLB.com simply re-publishes their work?  Otherwise, if they are paid by MLB or one of its affiliates, I have a very big problem counting any MLB.com articles as "independent" for purposes of establishing notability.  There are two relevant points about the "independence" of sources; first, we want them to be editorially independent from the subject matter as a matter of objectivity and reliability; second, we want them to be organizationally and financially unrelated to the subject matter as a proxy for how much significant coverage the subject receives in mainstream media.  When we rely on stories published exclusively on NCAA.com, NBA.com, NFL.com, NHL.com, etc., those are not really third-party sources; the parent organizations have a very obvious interest in promoting the sport, and that includes the players and teams.  Without that vested financial interest in the subject matter, obviously most of the MLB.com stories would never see the light of day because most of them would not be published -- there is only so much the mainstream news and sports media will publish, and those are the real measures of the depth of coverage.  Not sponsored baseball journalism by MLB.com.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with Span here. Strictly, as he clarifies, with regard to non-press releases written by beat reporters that contain a disclaimer that specifically states that "This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs." Epeefleche (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They are paid by MLB Advanced Media who managed the websites and web content for MLB (as well as several different organizaions) but MLB is supposed to not have any editorial control over the writers. This doesnt directly affect this discussion which I haven't actually voted in just my opinion that those articles shouldn't be summarily dismissed because they are listed on team websites. You can collapse this side discussion if you want as well. Spanneraol (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to hat this "digression," Spanner. It's very relevant to the present discussion, and American professional sports AfD discussions generally.  Our problem is this: MLB, or its subsidiary/affiliate MLB Advanced Media, has hired 30 beat reporters to cover the MLB teams.  Presumably, they're salaried, and at least part-time employees, if not full-time.  Let's assume that they're being paid at least $30 k per reporter for their work: that's approximately $1 million per year in beat reporter pay.  Now, add that to the several million dollars that MLB has undoubtedly invested in the web of MLB team wesbites they have created as a delivery mechanism for their MLB.com "news" articles.  Whether the reporters have editorial "independence" isn't really the point; MLB, acting through MLB.com, has just generated several million dollars in media coverage for players, coaches and support staff -- like bullpen catcher Pat Burgess -- many of whom would never have received significant coverage in truly independent media like The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Denver Post, The New York Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, The Washington Post, The Sporting News or Sports Illustrated.  It's not that MLB.com is somehow a bad source of information; in fact, it's a pretty good factual source.  But it's not independent coverage that would exist if MLB did not invest several million dollars of its own money every year to generate that coverage.  The Steinbrenner family does not have to pay Newsday and The New York Times to cover the Yankees; they cover the Yankees because it sells newspapers and advertising.  MLB.com is a very different model; something entirely different, in fact.  In the end analysis, MLB.com is a very expensive and very sophisticated form of vanity publishing, and because its coverage is bought and paid for by MLB, its coverage of players, coaches and other staff cannot be said to be independent.  That's it in a nutshell.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As User:Spanneraol pointed out above, they are independent in that they are not dictating content. That is key. Advertisers have a financial relationship with publications -- but don't dictate content, so we don't have an independence concern. Same analysis here, and same approach here. Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG and independent search does not find sources which would do it. I don't know why people are being tricked by these non-sources, as Articles for deletion/Steve Cilladi was the rarest of AfDs, a Keep where I voted Delete.  Edited to add, oh, i did not see Articles for deletion/Steve Cilladi (2nd nomination), glad to know my close to 100% record is keeping up.--Milowent • hasspoken  00:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with the close of the prior AfD, six months ago, which was a Keep. And the above Keep !votes that focus on GNG. I believe there is sufficient coverage here to meet GNG. I don't see these sources as "flaky." I also agree with Span's analysis of mlb.com as an RS that counts towards notability, in those circumstances indicated. I believe we now have an even split of the Wikipedians !voting in this discussion, but believe that the Keep !votes are more in line with wp principles.  I am not counting the nom, Mellowed, as he has been blocked indef and is not a Wikipedian, and as stated at Articles for deletion, "Articles for deletion ... is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." I recognize that there is room to squabble over mlb.com, but believe the better view is that it counts under the circumstances delineated above. Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a supremo inclusionist, recently brought to ANI for summoning asteroids to collide into Earth, but this is pretty weak stuff. The prior AFD has people simply thinking he's a coach so he's notable, not really catching that bullpen catchers don't normally meet WP:GNG as can be reasonably assumed for a main coach.  Find us two profiles on Mr. Burgess in reliable newspapers, and he's in, in my book.  Even if he played one MLB game in St. Louis in 1879, he's in under policy though its a stretch in those cases under GNG.  I don't see either here.  I will summon asteroids to save him if you find the goods.--Milowent • hasspoken  06:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable source vs. independent source: not the same thing - Your argument regarding MLB.com being a "reliable source" per WP:RS misses the point entirely: the argument is not whether MLB.com is reliable, the argument is whether MLB.com coverage of MLB-related topics is "independent" per WP:GNG (see also Independent sources).  MLB, acting through its affiliates MLB.com and MLB Advanced Media, is spending several millions of dollars per year to generate and publish articles on MLB-related topics such as MLB teams, players, coaches and other staff like Pat Burgess.  That MLB.com coverage is not independent of the MLB-related subject.  MLB, either directly or indirectly, owns and/or controls MLB.com and MLB and MLB Advanced Media.  Pat Burgess is employed by a MLB baseball team.  The MLB affiliates, MLB.com and MLB Advanced Media, exist solely to generate coverage of MLB-related topics, and their coverage of MLB-related topics would not exist but for MLB's investment of millions of dollars in generating such coverage of MLB-related topics.  Bottom line: MLB.com coverage is not independent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator: please note the hatted discussion above regarding Epeefleche's demand that nominator Mellowed Fillmore's !vote be disregarded because Mellowed Fillmore is blocked for reasons unrelated to this AfD; please see ANI discussion here: ; and blocking admin's notation in the block log here: . Please note that Epeefleche's demand is not supported by any Wikipedia policy.  Thank you.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dirtlawyer. I see no reason the nominator's vote shouldn't count, since there's no evidence of bad faith. If someone votes in good faith and then dies, his vote isn't struck. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur. I may disagree with the nomination, but there's no reason to believe that the nominator acted in poor faith, or that the nomination itself (the merits thereof aside) was in violation of policy.  In any event, Dirtlawyer is right, and there's no policy automatically revoking a vote or nomination made by someone who's subsequently blocked.  Nha Trang  Allons! 18:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant here whether the !vote is by a "bad faith" Wikipedian. He is not a Wikipedian. If someone dies, he is still a Wikipedian. If he is indef blocked, he is no longer a Wikipedian. We don't give weight in closes to good-faith non-Wikipedian sentiments. Just like if you contract to sell me a house, in good faith, and at closing we find you don't have title ... well, you can't sell me the house because you are not in the class (person with title) who can sell me the house. Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "If someone dies, he is still a Wikipedian"? That's one of the silliest things I've ever read. Also, "We don't give weight in closes to good-faith non-Wikipedian sentiments"? What is that supposed to mean? Are non-Wikipedians sending in their AfD opinions via telepathy or something? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just plain nonsense, and frankly a good bit of Wikilawyering to boot. The nom had a temporary block which was made permanent at the nom's request: not because he'd done anything warranting an indef.  Beyond that, I don't give a good goddamn whether or not someone who posts at AfD's been around for ten years or ten minutes -- the only thing that does and SHOULD matter is whether such an editor's posts are in accordance with policy and make sense.  Nha Trang  Allons! 16:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The nom had an indef blocked, followed by a reduction based on the guess that nom's vandalism may have been inadvertent, followed by an indef block supported by nom and his admission that his 200+ instances of vandalism were intentional and were vandalism. He is not a Wikipedian, and will not be a Wikipedian at the time that !votes of Wikipedians are counted. And we count !votes of Wikipedians -- as wp:AfD states. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG. And the discussion awhile back (linked in this discussion) concluded that bullpen catchers did not meet WP:NBASEBALL as assistant coaches.  And even if it did he'd still need  to meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2015 (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.