Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Brown (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. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Brown (baseball)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Is this notable. he played all of two games. Has no avg, no homeruns, or RBI's. But most importantly no info. There is no info on he besides his two games. Yes this was 130 years ago but nothing. Even is he battled left or right is unknown. Not to mention some of Teams that played for the National Association don't have articles. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Going out on a limb here and saying delete even though he is a major leaguer.  If this is the only information anyone can ever find on this guy, then why bother?  Given the typical error rate for baseball stats from 130 years ago, this guy may not have existed at all!   Wknight94  talk  18:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  —  Wknight94  talk  18:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Major League players have always been notable by virtue of their being major leaguers. Played professionally at the highest level. And the nominator is incorrect, all the National Association teams have articles. Spanneraol (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I'll point to the Union of Morrisania team the 1867 champs. Team championship pic here. Now to question that Major League players have been notable. I'll quote WP:Notability "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It also says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". The is no converge what so ever on this person. This will alway's be an article that says he played two games and nothing more.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The National Association of Professional Base Ball Players existed only from 1871-1875 and Morrisania was not a part of that league. They were part of the earlier amateur league. All members of the Professional league have pages.Spanneraol (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This player played for the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this player did.. but you asserted that all of those teams did not have wikipedia pages, but they all do.Spanneraol (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No I didn't has the NA refers to BOTH leagues as the left over from the first NA made the New NA. Not to mention the fact the MLB does considers them as the same competitive level and does not consider either to be the top.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One league was professional, the previous league was not.. no source considers the first league one the same level.. for instance Baseball Reference lists the statistics of the second league and treats it as a professional major league.. while the amateur league that preceded it is not treated as such. Very little is written about the individual teams in the prior league but the NAPBBP and its teams are written about in numerous sources. Spanneraol (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BIO and long-standing precedent.  caknuck °  needs to be running more often  06:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether it's fair or not, WP:ATHLETE has always conferred inherent notability on persons who have competed at the "fully professional level" of a sport, and the definition is then elaborated upon based upon which sport it is. In the case of baseball, the guidelines are WP:BASE/N, which exclude minor league players from inherent notability, but confer it upon people who played in leagues that historically have been considered to be "major".  Although Robert Brown played only two games in the National Association, the NA was the major league in 1874.  The National League didn't get its start until 1876, and the American League not until 1901.  Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember it says 'Additional criteria' that he goes under, but he doesn't meet the 'basic criteria'. I would think, under Notability (people), that basic criteria holds more ground than addition criteria.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of people don't like the concept, but "inherent notability" is presumed for members of certain groups of people, regardless of whether one could find significant coverage from multiple sources. For example, under WP:POLITICIAN, any person who has ever served in a national or state legislature for any length of time is generally considered notable, even if no other fact can be confirmed about that person beyond the fact of service in a legislature.  It's doubtful that we would be able to find a great deal of information about someone who had served as a legislator in Nicaragua in 1873, and yet that person would be excused from the usual requirements of demonstrating notability if a reliable source confirmed the service.  Robert Brown is one of the many people who get mentioned in The Baseball Encyclopedia and other player registers, regardless of having been a major leaguer only briefly.  The same type of inherent notability is generally afforded upon dinky little villages around the world, small-town radio stations, colleges that you and I have never heard of, senior high schools, and many other locations that cannot demonstrate worldwide fame.  Overall, I think that inherent notability is a good thing, because it bypasses the debates between ordinary people over whether someone is else is a "important enough" to merit their own article on Wikipedia.  Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - bias against his playing 130 years ago is ridiculous presentism. matt91486 (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with a bias. It's the fact this article has nothing, but he played two games. Not even if he batted right or left. He clearly does not have the basic criteria under WP:Notability (people) --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:ATH and WP:WPBB/N. The argument that we don't know if he batted left or right doesn't stand-up. Numerous players from the 19th century have "Unknown" as their batting and/or throwing label. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable as a MLB player. We don't know whether Herostratus was right- or left-handed; should we thus delete him, too? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Herostratus is not a baseball player. Can you find ONE just one other article on wikipedia of a baseball player who we don't know the handiness. If you want to compare the two pages Herostratus qualifies under Basic criteria while Brown does not.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can find a ton of 19th-century baseball player artcles that we dont know the handiness of... Gid Gardner as an example.. Spanneraol (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, just made one. Now, let's not make this a WP:WAX argument. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:05, 31 March 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.