Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zech Zinicola


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Zech Zinicola

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. PROD removed with, as usual, no rationale. Automatic Strikeout  02:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 03:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete — Appears not to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBASEBALL, or anything in between. JFHJr (㊟) 06:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Strike my vote, changed my views based on sources listed below... now voting keep. Spanneraol (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep While Kinston Eagle is de-PRODing every article, including some that should absolutely be deleted without an AfD, some of the de-PRODs are appropriate. The articles themselves presented here are in poor shape, and as far as I can tell all these "Delete - not notable" votes are made solely by looking at the sparse pages and not the coverage the subject has received. GNG is determined by significant coverage in multiple publications independent of the subject. Zincola has that, as I'm only presenting the best results of the first couple pages of a Google News Archive search. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing note If this is kept, we need an admin to perform a history merge with Zechry Zinicola – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - while the prod/de-prod history might not encourage the usual WP:BEFORE checks, they probably would have helped in this particular case. I think the sources provided by Muboshgu (which have now been included in the article itself) allow the subject to pass WP:GNG, regardless of WP:NBASEBALL-specific criteria. Stalwart 111  05:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep While I agree with everyone above on the lack of notability per WP:BASEBALL/N, I think that Muboshgu's sources do allow the article to meet WP:GNG. Go   Phightins  !  19:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep: Although he fails BASEBALL strictly speaking, I think leading a major US college team in saves in two seasons counts for something. Faustus37 (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, he may or may not be notable, but leading a college team in saves is not significant for our purposes.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 20:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep A lot of quick on the trigger deletes around here. Does it fail WP:BASE/N? Yes. Does it fail WP:GNG? No. I spotted quite a fair amount of non-WP:ROUTINE coverage of the subject as others have noted above, and the general notability guidelines always have precedence over sports notability guidelines. Two of the delete votes are tired, practically word-for-word WP:JNN rationales from Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and do nothing to help this AFD along one way or the other.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 20:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public)  talk   00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - it may fail WP:NBASEBALL, but it clearly passes WP:GNG from the sources above, which is more than enough for an article. Not sure why it was relisted again, since there are only 2 delete votes that expand on a "not notable" vote, to be honest. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I, too, question why this has been relisted once again. There were two votes that made arguments for keep, and one delete vote that went into zero detail and was yet another stock response. I'm not sure what the closing admin is trying to accomplish, but I think consensus has been reached since the arguments for deletion vary from weak to just saying, "Non-notable".  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 16:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Muboshgu's expansion of the article, which includes sources that demonstrate the subject meets WP:GNG.  Gongshow  Talk 05:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Subject meets the technical threshold of WP:GNG, as demonstrated by Muboshgu.  That having been said, the subject's notability is marginal, and I would gladly vote to merge the article to one of our lists of minor league ball players if such an option were presently available.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete + Comment I can't believe people are voting to keep this based on a PED suspension and a couple minor stories about the player being promoted between leagues, which happens hundreds if not thousands of times per year. If this player passes WP:GNG, then 98% of minor league players, managers, and coaches pass WP:GNG, including dozens of players whose most noteworthy "achievement" was being suspended for PEDs. These Baseball AfDs are becoming grudge matches rather than places of consistent voting and policy. Some of the same people voting Keep here have, just within the past few weeks, voted Delete on articles with far more citations. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2012 (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.