Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Jones (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  No Consensus. There is no consensus below as to whether the coverage of the article subject is sufficient to support an article despite the fact that he never appeared in the Major Leagues. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ryan Jones (baseball)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NBASEBALL Joeykai (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete..had he played in ONE Major League game, then...but he did not, so, no. Antonio Big Balls Martin (aca) 06:57, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
 * Playing in the Major Leagues passes WP:NBASEBALL, but it is not mandatory for notability of a non-Major League player who passes WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Very weak deletion rationale. Not playing in the major leagues doesn't automatically disqualify a baseball player from being notable. Passes WP:GNG, earned considerable coverage for his minor league feats. Alex (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Baseball career is unexceptional.. never made the majors or even the high minors, spent much of his time in independent ball. Coverage is of the routine variety that any middling prospect might receive. Spanneraol (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering this was the pre-Internet article era (1990s), I'm certain there is considerable in-depth local coverage of a guy who managed over 200 career home runs. Alex (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Minor league ballplayers in the pre-internet era got considerably less coverage than they do now. Spanneraol (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  15:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Weak keep - The article has significant coverage from 2 independent sources, which can arguably be enough to meet WP:GNG's guideline for "multiple sources." But I would generally want to see more, especially since the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal can be viewed as "local coverage" from a fairly minor source and thus might be considered "routine."  But the other source is the Los Angeles Times, which covered him multiple times, and is very major.  So I would expect there to be more coverage, if only by more localized sources, if the L.A. Times saw fit to write articles about him, even if that coverage would be difficult to find online just prior to the internet era.  And I was able to find at least one more significant article about him in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  So I would pass him under WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best for now as this current article is still questionably better for improvements and is likely best put aside such as Draft so further work can be accomplished. SwisterTwister   talk  04:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't decide yet because the article is a jumbled mess of text. Alex, we can do better. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - It meets the WP:NBASE secondary criteria 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 ." Just because an article is poorly written does not justify its deletion. There's the WP:GOCE for help in improving an article's readability.-- MarshalN20 T al k 05:12, 2 April 2016 (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.