Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Florimon, Jr.


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Pedro Florimon, Jr.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable minor leaguer, and no content in the article to show any possibly notability. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Being on the 40 man roster does show some possibly notability. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. On Orioles 40-man roster. Article needs work though. Spanneraol (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players, however, after clean-up, I would change my vote to keep. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Change to keep after self clean-up. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: a $400,000, one year contract shows that even a minor league gig is "fully professional" for the purposes of wp:ATHLETE. Buddy431 (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He fails wp:ATHLETE because he has actually competed at the "fully professional" level of the sport. It doesn't matter how much money he makes.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 03:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Narthring, how does he "fail" WP:ATHLETE is he has competed in a fully professional league? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If he had competed in a fully professional league he would obviously pass WP:ATHLETE. He hasn't.  While he does have a contract with the Orioles he has never taken the field and thus has never competed in a fully professional league.  You could argue that even though he technically hasn't played a game that having a contract is good enough.  In my opinion it isn't.  I agree with the more specific WP:NSPORT arguement criterion #2 that he has to actually appear in a game to pass notability.  WP:NSPORT isn't an accepted policy but I agree with its interpretation as to what "competing" actually is.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 03:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Eastern League is actually a fully professional league.. no amateurs allowed so that argument doesn't work. As far as NSPORT, he seems to have enough sourcing and prose to satisfy #6 or at the very least should be merged per #7. Spanneraol (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well as stated above, the minor leagues are fully professional. See professional baseball. It may not be the highest professional level. But that's not the argument. It is fully professional. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking at the issue some more I understand it a bit better. Professional = paid/full time contract vs. amateur = no pay/have to have a side job.  The sourcing does seem to be good enough to satisfy #6, particularly this.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 13:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NSPORT - see criterion #6 for minor league players, specifically "To establish that (a minor league player) is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."  I haven't seen any resources that would satisfy this requirement.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 03:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Delete. Guidelines did not intend include baseball minor leaguers. No [strong evidence of] significant coverage in secondary sources. -- Pink Bull  19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Professional players are included meaning minor leaguers are as well. More specifically, WP:WPBB/N states that, "To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The article does in fact cite reliable, intellectually independent, and independent sources, including this, and this. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the baseball guideline allows for minor leaguers to be considered notable if they meet the general notability guidelines. The sources you provide above are the best sources in the article, but significant coverage has yet to be demonstrated. However, I'll modify my vote somewhat because I'm less confident in the lack of notability.
 * I would also like to suggest a merge. I understand what you're saying, however, typically team's minor league articles (Baltimore Orioles minor league players) are the place for players who establish some notability, but not enough for their own article. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merging is preferred to deletion, especially where the content is impeccably sourced like in this instant. However, merging to Baltimore Orioles minor league players may prove awkward since at this time the article is nothing but templates of player rosters. Merging to Bowie Baysox, the last team he played for, may also be an option. But that seems unprecedented, partly because minor leaguers tend to move up and down in the minor league levels, as far as I know.-- Pink Bull  21:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:WPBB/N, merging to the team's minor league articles is the way to do it. See Seattle Mariners minor league players (and most of the other team's articles). In the case of the Orioles' article, it seemed that an editor just deleted the people because it wasn't very clean. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:22, 4 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.