Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Hample


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 02:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Zack Hample

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Vanity page. Non notable individual. Many passing notices, current news (non encyclopediac), youtube ,and blog sources. NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't all the media coverage (including things that date back to the 90s) in fact evidence of his notability? Forget the A-Rod ball; he had already been interviewed on national network TV programs, had newspaper articles written about him, and authored 3 books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.134.101 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - The article does need a slight rewrite in some areas, but the individual is clearly notable. What do you mean by vanity? An actual reason may make an actual argument, but I don't see one. The person set records, is nationally covered, and an interesting subject of sports fans. Clearly needs to stay, confused as to why it was nominated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 21.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 02:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Also Speedy Keep. He's been noteworthy for a while - received significant coverage after his back-to-back homer snags, game show appearance, three books - A-Rod snag/keep has just resulted in controversy. Controversy be eschewed, there's no need for his page to be whacked. DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This guy has received a ton of coverage. Alex (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly enough coverage.--Yankees10 02:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Like him and his antics or not, he's gotten enough coverage for GNG. Some cleanup is needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The guy has been relevant in baseball for quite awhile; his books on baseball (one specifically) are published and have been fairly well-read; his accomplishments are very unique and surprisingly important in the baseball world. His recent newsworthy catch and reaction only make me think more that he deserves an article.  Mets fre ak   (Hello!) 02:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Although the article does need some cleanup - for instance I just removed these links:
 * NPR Interview
 * ESPN.com article
 * Sports On Earth article
 * USA Today article
 * Sports Illustrated article (April 9, 2001)
 * Sports Illustrated article (August 16, 2010)
 * New York Times article
 * Associated Press article
 * People Magazine article
 * foxsports.com article
 * Orange County Register article
 * Baltimore Sun article
 * Philadelphia Inquirer article
 * Deadspin article
 * Ripley's Believe It or Not article
 * San Francisco Examiner article
 * Dallas Morning News article
 * Pioneer Press article
 * Sydney Morning Herald article
 * MLB Network interview — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.82.35 (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This man has published three books about baseball, and been interviewed by various news media, which make him undoubtedly notable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:39, 26 June 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.