Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Powers (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 redirect to College World Series Most Outstanding Player. Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Steve Powers (baseball)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article states in the very first sentence that Powers 'is most notable for winning the 1976 College World Series Most Outstanding Player award'. This accomplishment does not satisfy BASE/N. Even if it did, Powers fails GNG. I would recommend a redirect to 'College World Series Most Outstanding Player', as per the precedent established at Articles for deletion/J. L. Smith. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not gonna take a position on this guy just yet... but he did play in the 1975 Pan American Games which might satisfy BASE/N as it has in past afd discussions been considered as sufficient. Spanneraol (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC) After thinking it over, i'm gonna vote for the redirect. Spanneraol (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I'm not crazy about that reasoning. He doesn't magically go from non-notable to notable just by playing in a marginally significant tournament. The standard is GNG, even if BASE/N is often given higher prominence by inclusionists (this is a general comment and not personally addressed to Spanneraol). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect per precedence. Never reached MLB and the article does not have any references to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * At least redirect, and I could see keeping per Spanneraol. It's not that he magically becomes notable for playing in a particular tournament, it's that he may well have had enough coverage to meet GNG regardless, and any Pan-Am coverage may well expand the amount of coverage he received.  As a pre-internet player, any coverage about him is not as easy to find, but that is why we have these presumptions of notability.  In any case, I am not sure why this is at AfD.  A redirect could be achieved by simply editing the article to make it a redirect. Rlendog (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's at AfD because 1) I'm not really comfortable with unilaterally redirecting without getting any input and 2) I think Alex would probably just revert me anyway. I get your point about presumptions of notability, but I really don't think the Pan-Am games rise to that level. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep His body of work makes him notable. Alex (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, coverage by a significant amount of third-party sources makes one notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So 75% of pre-1950 major leaguers aren't notable then, either. Alex (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) We aren't talking about someone who lived pre-1950. 2) They did have newspapers back then. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect Seems reasonable for someone of dubious notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 12 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.