Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Notability

Proposal to review notability guidelines
From watching AfD discussions of minor league players over the last year or so, it's clear that there isn't widespread support for either of the two extreme positions—keeping all articles on minor leaguers or deleting all of them. The WikiProject's current notability recommendations were posted in October 2007; since then, they have frequently been referenced in AfD debates. Some editors have disagreed with them, and not all of the consensus decisions were strictly in agreement. These standards are a good starting point, but my experience with AfD discussions suggests that it might be useful to re-open the discussion of the specific criteria to make sure that they are clear, fair, and are accomplishing what we would like them to, in terms of distinguishing the minor leaguers who can be presumed notable from those who are not.

Probably most of the discussion will focus on the sixth criterion, which specifically addresses minor league players. The current recommendation identifies minor leaguers as notable if they have accomplished one of the following: (a) played a whole season in AAA baseball; (b) played in the All-Star Futures Game; (c) won a notable Minor League Baseball award; or (d) been selected for any minor league baseball all-star game in the affiliated minor leagues.

What is the rationale for these criteria? In the Fort Myers Miracle players discussion, User:Hit bull, win steak observed that most of the all stars selected from the Class A South Atlantic League in 2000 have subsequently made the majors. User:Wknight94 responded that only one of the all stars from the Arizona Fall League in 2000 has made the majors. This discussion led me to consider that objective factors that are strongly related to a player eventually making the majors may be a useful way to distinguish notable minor leaguers. For example, all star selections in higher minor league classifications may be strongly related to reaching the majors, but for low level leagues like rookie leagues, all stars aren't necessarily likely to reach the majors.

The comment was made that trying to identify minor leaguers who are likely to advance to the majors may be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If I were to subjectively select prospects who I think have a high probability of reaching the majors, that would be original research and a violation of CRYSTAL. However, it seems to me that using past experience of minor leaguers advancing to the majors to help us pick objective, observable achievements that can be used to establish notability does not violate CRYSTAL. We're not predicting that a particular player will eventually make the majors; we're simply saying that his accomplishments are similar to those of past minor leaguers who have made it to the majors.

This insight suggests that perhaps we should look for adding some other criteria that are more strongly related to eventually making the majors. The ones I'd like to suggest are (a) being named to a team's 40-man roster, (b) being selected to any of the annual lists of 100 top prospects published by Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus, Sporting News, ESPN, or Sports Illustrated (these lists have considerable overlap, so I don't see a problem with allowing players who've been named to any of the lists); or (c) being selected as a first-round draft pick.

My guess is that well over 90 percent of minor leaguers named to a major league 40-man roster will eventually play for the team. I believe that about 80 percent of the players on the Top 100 lists make it to the majors. And well over half of first-round draft picks eventually make it to the majors. Thus, all of these are criteria that are objective, easily observable, and helpful in identifying players who are likely to make the majors.

On the other hand, I'd recommend dropping the all star team criterion for the lower minors, limiting it to Class AAA and AA (and possibly Class A). In addition, we need to be more specific about which All Star team we're talking about—I'd focus on the end-of-season teams that are featured on baseballcube.com, since they are based on the full season performance. BRMo (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't read this and it's almost time to pack it in tonight but I encourage folks to read my latest post on the subject which essentially advocates abolishing these guidelines altogether. Stick with WP:BIO and determine if you can write a real article based on significant coverage by independent reliable sources.  If so, it's in - otherwise, it's out.  If that means deleting major league articles, so be it.  —Wknight94 (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Separate guidelines shouldn't be incompatible with WP:BIO. The goal of WikiProject guidelines should be to identify those players who are almost certain to have significant coverage by independent reliable sources.  Having WikiProject guidelines should help us identify those players in a more consistent manner than what's used too often in AfD debates, which is simple counts of google hits. BRMo (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Forget Google hits - I'm starting to lean towards determining whether there is significant coverage from reliable independent sources in the article right now. Not whether more can be found now.  Using that criteria alone, I'll bet a tremendous number of articles would be deemed unsalvageable and would hit the scrap heap.  Do away with the ridiculous number of articles that are nothing but stat collections and, upon further review, are simply perma-stubs.  —Wknight94 (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually sympathetic to your argument. For the last year or so, I've not created any new articles until they were well sourced and beyond the stub stage.  But if I understand what you're saying, your recommendation would go beyond baseball and require a change to Wikipedia's core WP:N guidelines.  For example, WP:N says, "If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources."  In other words, an article can't be deleted simply because it doesn't include its sources; a separate effort must also be made to find out if sources exist.  Sometimes that happens at AfD discussions, but more often the search is superficial.  That's why I still support having WikiProject guidelines to help identify those players who are sufficiently notable that sources can safely be assumed to exist. BRMo (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how everyone would ever agree to the "safely be assumed to exist" part. In my most recent search for a 2000 A-level all-star, I found absolutely nothing.  Is it because of when he played?  Would we need different guidelines for pre-2000 minor leaguers because there is almost no on-line coverage of such players?  Then we'd need to do something similar for major leaguers.  If we can't even find a date of birth for a player, it's probably safe to assume that MLB and SABR, etc., have exhausted all research on the player and come up with nothing.  Therefore, it's a perma-stub so delete.  Hard to believe that idea would gain any traction.  So I suppose I am advocating a new thought process to notability.  Establish the notability when I bring it to AFD or it's going to be in trouble.  —Wknight94 (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the player I think you're talking about, there weren't any sources available because news most news links go stale after several years. I remember reading about him when he was active, though, so there are print articles about him lurking in the stacks somewhere, and in a brief check of my bookshelf at home I did manage to find a capsule analysis of him in an old scouting guide. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with Wknight's approach here.. because it would lead to the deletion of many major league player articles.. something no one wants I am sure... stub articles do have a purpose here with the assumption that eventually someone will improve them... BRMo's approach seems the correct one.. altering the current guidelines... In fact, I am somewhat in agreement about restricting the ALl-star team criteria to AA and AAA All-Stars because the recent discussions have led me to reconsider the notability of the lower level minor leaguers.. AAA & AA All-Stars, Futures Games participants, major end of season award winners (Pitcher of the Year, Player of the Year) in the High minors... Not sure about a blanked inclusion of top draft picks, unless it's top draft picks that have advanced past the rookie leagues... As far as the Baseball America top 100 lists... I'm not sure about that either.. but it seems a good place to start. Spanneraol (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is there are a lot of major league player articles that aren't improvable (is that a word?). That's what I'm saying - SABR does nothing but research baseball players.  If they can't even find a birth certificate on someone or prove that the person even existed, how is anyone here going to expand on their article?  If there's nothing to say about someone, there's nothing to say.  Why are we forcing ourselves to write articles on such people?  Like I stated (much) earlier, there's nothing wrong with putting such people in a list article.  Per the second line of WP:BIO, the standards for inclusion in a list article are much lower than having a separate article.  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles on obscure, old-time major league players often expand much better than you'd think, if you're willing to put in a little bit of work. I heard that argument during the AFD for Ed McLane, a one-game player from 1907, and guess what? Using only a really coarse and shoddy bit of online research, we were able to expand it to a perfectly fine and functional article. Now, there are a few players from the 1880s and such about whom very little is known, even after research by SABR... but what harm is done by letting people have access to all the information that IS available? You once thought that was the right course to take... I miss the mindset of those days. In the present Wikipedia, it seems like people's first impulse is too often to throw away a flawed article (and all the work that went into it), rather than just doing a little research and fixing whatever sourcing or style or NPOV issues it may have. If it's not perfect right now, screw anyone who'd benefit from an imperfect, transitional version. Get it out of here! Someone else can always waste a bunch of time re-inventing it later. (But now I'm rambling...) -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I love when articles are expanded, even if an AFD is required to make it happen. But look at the article before the expansion.  It's nothing but a rip-off of the Baseball-Reference site.  What's the point?  How frustrating must it be for readers to come here looking for an encyclopedia article only to find an exact duplicate of the information that is easily available at so many other web sites?  We should strive for more here.  Create the expanded article first, not after it's been tagged for cleanup for a year and finally brought up for deletion.  And hey, that AFD you mentioned was from 2006.  I was so young and innocent then, and I needed the money.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't control what is available on other sites, only what's available on this one. Sean Forman could have a stroke and die tomorrow, or become a Luddite and let the domain go fallow, and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Plus, thanks to WP:V and WP:NOR, EVERYTHING here is ripped (or at least gently borrowed) from somewhere else. Why should it matter that the info for that stub came from there, instead of somewhere else? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But NOT STATS and not INDISCRIMINATEly. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, but I don't see this falling afoul of either of those. It's a biographical entry, not a list of stats, and it's not indiscriminate, since it'd fall within whatever set of notability guidelines we ultimately determine here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The success rate of All-Stars from leagues below A-Ball reaching the majors is fairly low. If you want to draw the line based on indicators of potential future notability, that's probably be the place to draw it. I'm not sure that an outcome-based approach is necessarily the right way to go, however... When we originally drew up the guideline, we supported All-Stars at all levels of classification because the correlation between an All-Star appearance at any level and mentions in a major media source was fairly high (although articles in the papers of record for home cities in the ultra-low levels of the minors don't often stick around online for long), and also because if any short-season or rookie-league player were notable, you'd think it'd be the league's All-Star. As an aside, looking at the past discussions on the subject at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) and Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes) may be helpful, as both a sense for why the current guideline is what it is, and how we got there. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Single-A-ball minor leaguers certainly aren't particularly notable, I've noticed. I tend to approach these things as an inclusionist, and the current guidelines are loose enough that they support hyper-inclusionism... but for the sake of forming a usable guideline, I agree it is time to tighten the standard.  My gut says to handle this like the NFL does - the only indicator of "presumptive notability" should be one box score appearance with the Major League club, or with any of the historical big leagues listed in the current guideline (Negro League, Japanese major leagues, etc).  The NFL rule is very bright line and easy to interpret; the current baseball standard is not.  A minor league baseball person could still qualify under traditional WP:V WP:RS WP:N standards outside of this requirement, but would not be able to use "inherent baseball notability" as a fallback - and trivial mentions on Baseball America lists wouldn't cut it. Townlake (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree pretty much wholeheartedly with Townlake. matt91486 (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)ditto. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The situation with the NFL isn't necessarily analogous, though, since there aren't any minor leagues affiliated with it. College football is the main feeder system to the NFL, and we have eleventy-hojillion articles in Category:College football players... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked through a couple of them, and they all made it eventually to the NFL. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like you're right (my bad!). Still, the larger point stands: There isn't a developmental league for the NFL to correspond to a MLB team's farm system. I do see that there are articles for some players in the NBDL (the NBA's feeder system) who have articles without having ever played in the NBA, which would seem to correspond fairly closely to our situation here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The larger point does not stand. The developmental league for the NFL is college, and you'll find few (if any) Wikipedia bios on current college players which don't meet the wp:bio requirement of substantial coverage in reliable sources. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in my mind the difference between a de facto developmental league and a de jure developmental league is pretty significant. College players are unpaid amateurs with no connection to any specific professional franchise (until they are drafted/signed after leaving school). As such, they fail WP:ATHLETE explicitly, since they aren't members of a fully professional league. Minor league baseball players (and NBDL basketball players) are, in contrast, full-time professionals who are affiliated with a professional team. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Coming in late, BRMo's guidelines look sensible, and broadly consistent with the criteria used in the hockey and soccer Wikiprojects; that top level minor leaguers who put in some time are notable and that low level minor leaguers have to stand out in a big way. That being said, I wouldn't be quite so sanguine in WKnight's shoes that a strict application of WP:V will get rid of all those pesky minor leaguer articles. The capacity of sportswriters for feature articles on the fellows playing for the hometown ballclub is limitless, and those fulfill WP:V in every particular.  Ravenswing  23:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In a pretty broad sense, I agree there as well, though the Cube lists are incomplete and not entirely reliable, so I'd prefer external sourcing (either in an annual guide or a newspaper article), and I'd draw the line on All-Stars right under A-ball (trimming short-season, rookie ball, and MLB-affiliated foreign leagues like the DSL and VSL). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ravenswing, I'm coming to the realization that I don't want to get rid of minor leaguer articles, just the shitty ones. You're right that sportswriters constantly write about every level of minor leaguer - and yet it's shocking how few of those write-ups make it into articles here. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Is probability of making the majors the right focus?
(semi-arbitrary break here) I'm very uncomfortable basing minor league notability guidelines on probability of making the majors. Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but it seems to me that the individual notability guidelines are a quick guide towards determining which articles are likely to meet WP:N or WP:BIO, avoiding a series of deletions and recreations of articles that will eventually be shown to be notable. Players who have played in a single MLB game are notable because it is highly likely that coverage exists in the sports sections of many newspapers, The Sporting News, Baseball America, etc, meeting WP:BIO. I can wholeheartedly endorse a proposal of the type "MiLB players who have done x are considered notable because there is likely to be a lot of reliable, independent sources about them", but not "MiLB players who have done x are considered notable because they have a 75% probability of making the majors".-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  19:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan but how are you going to determine that? Folks are saying that the reliable independent sources are locked away in local newspapers and magazines that only a percentage of libraries carry.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully a discussion could come to some kind of consensus on that. Seems to me that we've been able to determine it for MLB players, so we should for MiLB players. Granted, MLB teams are in larger cities where resources are more widely available, but few newspapers in the late 19th / early 20th century are available online and my local library doesn't have copies of the Chicago Tribune or New York Times from back then. I take it on faith that someone who played a single game for the Chicago Whales will have had coverage in the Chicago papers because I've seen the amount of coverage a player gets in my local paper after a single game with the A's or Giants, over 100 miles away from me.


 * One possible approach (not the only one, and probably not the best one, just the first one that comes to mind) is to arbitrarily pick a standard (say just for discussion all AAA players and AA All-Stars), take a random sample of modern players who meet that standard and are on teams near major metropolitan areas such as New York or San Francisco, and see how good the sources are in the online versions of those large papers. If many of them are turning up sources, it is probably safe to assume that similar small-market players will also have print sources that can be ferreted out.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  20:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As everyone here knows, just like in the majors, minor league rosters are ultra-fluid during the season with call-ups and send-downs. Some players spend one or two or more years with a single MiLB club, others spend a couple weeks in AAA then back to AA and then back up and so on.  Heck, the "one majors box score appearance" idea itself errs on the side of inclusionism - many players come up from AAA for a few days to fill an injured dude's roster spot, luck into a late-game appearance, and then go back down forever.  Trying to extend "presumptive notability" further down the chain seems like a situation where good arguments could be made either way, but ultimately would tend farther and farther toward over-extending the presumption. Townlake (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like we're thinking along the same lines. My gut feeling is AAA All-Star game is definitely notable; a single AAA game I might be convinced is notable if it was shown that's likely to have coverage; a single game at Rookie League would need really compelling evidence. (And I feel strongly that any player who meets WP:BIO is notable, even if he doesn't meet these guidelines).


 * I really hope we can come to a consensus on the guideline, because we'll continue to have contentious AfDs otherwise. And even if there is a consensus, we may still have contentious AfDs because WP:ATHLETE is so irritatingly vague. (What exactly is a "fully professional league"? Is it a league where you get paid $1? Where you get paid at least minimum wage for the time you put in? Where you get paid what you'd make at a full-time year 'round minimum wage job? Where you could buy a house, raise a family, and not depend on a spouse's income? Where at least one player, but not every player, meets the wage standard chosen? Yikes.)-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  22:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why the guidelines specified at least one year of AAA ball rather than just an appearance in one game. Spanneraol (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I do think you and I are close, 'cept for this: I follow the majors pretty closely, and I know the roster of the AAA club for my favorite team (which shall remain nameless so as not to antagonize brewcrewer, ha)... but I honestly couldn't tell you the names of anyone from outside my team who made the AAA All Star Game. I know ESPN airs it - or at least used to - but should a AAA All Star presumptively be notable?  I could be convinced, and as an inclusionist I'd like to be convinced, but it brings up a slippery slope problem where post-season awardees would logically have to be included too since such achievements are comparable to All Star recognition and roughly as likely to indicate a future big-club roster spot.  Better to wait till they actually make the bigs to extend the presumptive tag, in my opin. Townlake (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't tell you outside of my MLB teams who made the MLB All-Star team this year. That's more a function of my busy life and bad memory than notability. ;-)-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  00:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for grins, I took the first person listed at MiLB.com on the 2007 All-Star team (Steve Bray, someone I hadn't heard of -- I was mildly surprised at how many I had heard of) and tried to find independent sources online for him. Lots of stat sites, a few blogs, a couple of passing mentions. Small sample size, but it seems to shoot down my theory that AAA All-Star is a good indicator of notability. :( -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  00:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm misunderstanding, I worry that Fabrictramp's idea breaks down the further back in time you go. I know my hometown's local newspaper barely had major league coverage (or obituaries for genealogy research) when you get earlier than 1930 or so.  I can't imagine coverage of minor league players would be too easy to find either.  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All we had in California until 50 years ago was minor league so we had a lot of coverage out here even prior to 1930. The local public TV station did a show on baseball in Sacramento and showed a huge number of newspaper clippings going back to the 1800s on players and teams. I just assumed other towns would have info, too.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  00:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Before about 1960, the relationship between major leagues and minor leagues was very different. Prior to 1925, there were no farm teams and all minor leagues were independent.  Furthermore, there were no national media--no radio, no television--and the newspapers focused on the local team.  Baseball fans in Minneapolis followed the Millers, fans in San Francisco followed the Seals, and fans in Detroit followed the Tigers.  If the city was big enough to have a daily newspaper with sports pages, it covered its minor league team.  Then  Branch Rickey established the first farm teams in about 1925 and they became increasingly important, but there were still a lot of independent minor league teams in the late 1940s and early 50s.  Also, radio took off during this period, and fans throughout the MidWest could listen to Cardinals and Cubs games. That's the period when major league baseball really established a monopoly over the professional game.  The dominance of major league baseball was ensured when the Dodgers and Giants moved to the West coast in 1958, displacing the PCL from its biggest cities.  The implication for notability guidelines, I think, is that historical minor leaguers will need to be treated as exceptions to specific criteria and will need to be judged on a case-by-case basis.  For example, Steve Dalkowski never lasted a full season in Class AAA, but there are lots of reliable sources, so he obviously satisfies notability. BRMo (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Returning to Fabrictramp's question that started this section, I think there's a very close correlation between availability of reliable sources and the criteria that I suggested have been associated with a player making the majors. The Top 100 Prospects lists are, themselves, reliable sources (since they generally include a write-up on each player). Furthermore, there is usually a lot of overlap in the lists of the various publications, so you generally get write-ups on the same player from several different publications. Similarly, articles are written about number one draft picks when they are first selected, and they tend to continue to receive coverage throughout their minor league careers. If I were ranking the three new criteria I suggested in terms of coverage in reliable sources, I would order them (1) 40-man roster, (2) Top 100 lists, (3) number one draft picks, and all three would be ahead of All Star selections. BRMo (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick note on the obvious. If or when someone takes a stab at this guideline, please include a summary of this information, i.e. how they represent an assumption of the availability of significant coverage by independent reliable sources.  It's good information for eternal skeptics like myself.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Case study: Brad Baker
Okay, I'm perusing minor league player articles and ran across Brad Baker. Baker was a first round pick in 1999, cracked into AAA in 2004 but never got to the bigs. After posting an ERA over 7½ last year in AAA, he announced his retirement. He won various awards and such but it seems he's going to disappear into obscurity. The only sources given in the article are stats site and some guy's personal web site. What purpose is served in keeping this article? I haven't looked - is there something else to his life to indicate notability? — Wknight94 (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to the numerous honors you note, and his participation in a major deadline trade, Baker was on the Braves' 40-man roster as recently as two years ago (and on the Padres' 40-man roster before that), though he wasn't called up to the majors. With about five minutes of looking, I found full-length profiles of Baker in USA Today and The Boston Globe (which has run several - here's another), both of which could be added to his article if someone were so inclined. Plus several years' worth of writeups in annual BA guides, of course. And whatever else people want to pull from his 430 GNews hits, since I got bored after about 5 pages. He pretty clearly meets the general notability requirements of WP:N, and it seems unwise to me for us to adopt a standard that's significantly tighter than the one applied to the project as a whole. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured but I still keep waffling. I had no doubt that he met WP:N and yet I still can't imagine who is going to care about him in 50 years. He probably pulled down a salary lower than mine while he played - looks like minimum wage at the AAA level is literally around 5% the MLB minimum. And now he's done. According to the one guy's personal site, he's just going into regular business life like the rest of us shnooks (to borrow a Goodfellas-ism). I'm tying to get down with this concept but it's leaving a real bad taste. The tact that hinted at seemed like a good one - unless you can find something interesting to write about the guy, don't bother. Hmmmm... — Wknight94 (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To me, that seems like a textbook application for WP:NOT. The number of people who will be interested in Baker in the future may be limited... but I bet it's not zero, and there's no real downside for us in filling their need for information on him. Even if it's just one guy a year who sees Baker's name in the Alan Embree article, and wonders who he is, then we're still providing something of value. And there's really no downside. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm a bit more inclusionist. If he meets WP:N, and someone cares enough to take the time to write an article (or even a good stub) about him, what's the harm? Anyways, in 50 years, we'll be on to some other technology that will make Wikipedia look like scratches on a rock. *grin*-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe what's eating at me is that people aren't expanding them. People seem to be creating minor leaguer articles just for the sake of creating them, using only stat sites and never expanding them unless they make the majors.  In 10 years, we're going to be left with hundreds or thousands of double-A player articles, all tagged with primarysources, and no one is going to bother expanding them.  But I suppose that's more of a systemic problem and applies to areas all over Wikipedia.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Spend a few days over at WP:DEP and you'll think those minor leaguer articles are gems. At least with the stat site link, they meet WP:V. :)


 * Of course, when I said "if he meets WP:N", I was assuming someone had added a couple of quality sources to the article that demonstrate how he meets WP:N. If I could be granted just one wish to improve Wikipedia, it would be that every editor suddenly take proper sourcing seriously. Ain't gonna happen, but I can dream. *grin* -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  13:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe my issue is with the wording wherever (WP:N or WP:AFD?) that says a lack of sources is not a good reason for deletion. To me, it should be.  WP:V says the burden of sourcing lies with the author and that unverified material can be removed.  In many cases, such removal would result in an empty article and empty articles are immediate speedy deletions.  But that logic doesn't work here.  Maybe that's the issue I should really be pushing - somewhere.  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's your objection, then yeah, probably. I don't expect it to change (it's pretty close to project core values), but you're certainly welcome to try. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes baseball different?

 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." (WP:NOTE) I still don't get why the guidelines for the rest of Wikipedia aren't suitable for baseball.  Requiring editors to look at the actual sources doesn't seem like a bad thing.  Rather than coming up with some fast and dirty rule of "x many games" or any of the arbitrary milestones being thrown around here, why not simply use the existing guidelines?  If having played a full year in AAA is actually a notable achievement, then surely there must be multiple sources on it.  And if not, well, it can't be that notable.  Wickethewok (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to WP:N, other Wikipedia guidelines also need to be considered. For example, most former minor league players who never made it tot he majors are not public figures; they are people living ordinary lives.  WP:BLP addresses the importance of ensuring that the content in articles about living people is verified in reliable sources and protects their privacy, while WP:BLP1E recommends not creating biographies of people noted for one event. WP:NOTDIRECTORY argues against using Wikipedia like a database and mass producing articles.  WP:NOT says that not everything covered in newspapers is notable, and consideration should also be given to the "historical notability" of the subject.  In trying to balance these considerations in a fair manner, a number of WikiProjects, including those for several other sports, have found it useful to develop their own notability criteria. So baseball really isn't "different."  Nevertheless, my experience suggests that any well documented article that clearly explains why the subject is notable is going to make it through an AfD discussion.  The criteria we're discussing here are mostly just trying to help us establish a clear borderline. BRMo (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So do you think this will help expedite deletion discussions then? I'm just worried that AFDs and such would turn into debates as to whether these guidelines are applicable or if the subject is an exception to these guidelines.  My concerns are basically that extra work is being put into writing (and then reading/re-reading/revising) these guidelines, when this time would be better spent researching subjects on an individual basis.  Wickethewok (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree with Wickethewok. Establishing a checklist of arbitrary "Player X is presumably notable if he did this... or this... or this" standards is clearly a failed practice - that's why this discussion's taking place to begin with.  For fringe cases like minor league all stars, it is entirely reasonable to expect normal sourcing standards to apply without trying to identify a singular default presumption.  (And this is coming from someone who vigorously upheld the existing default presumption at AfD last week.) Townlake (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess that would be my preference too except... I'd also like to see people forced into putting in a little more effort.  We have too many people acting like bots and too few actually writing prose.  That's what forces these guidelines to be created.  Folks above keep shooting down my arguments because it turns out the sources are out there, but there is no responsibility put on people to actually incorporate those sources!  As a result, even with the guidelines, we wind up with a littany of cookie-cutter prose-free stub articles that make great cures for insomnia.  But the authors can simply say "the sources are out there if you search for five minutes" and their bore-fest survives AFD.  With the extra guidelines, at least we'd have fewer of the useless BaseballCube data-dump articles.  I'd love to see an end to the sofixit days. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see better article sourcing, too, but if you delete a badly-sourced article on a notable topic, all you're doing is ensuring that no one will ever source it. That's something that's going to need to come from a larger site-wide movement, rather than just WikiProject Baseball. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Draft guidelines

 * Baseball figures are considered notable if they:
 * Meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO, as well as one of the following:
 * Are a member of a major Hall of Fame, such as the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum or the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame.
 * Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, Chinese Professional Baseball League or any other top-level foreign league.
 * Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues: All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players League, Union Association.
 * Have served as a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager in one of the above-mentioned leagues or affiliated minor leagues.
 * Have played in at least a whole season in AAA baseball, played in the All-Star Futures Game, won a notable Minor League Baseball award, or been selected for any minor league baseball All-star game in the affiliated minor leagues.
 * Have served as a Major League Baseball umpire on a regular league staff and have worked in at least one postseason or All-Star Game; umpires of the 19th century must have worked in at least 200 games . Minor league umpires are considered notable only if they have been elected to a league hall of fame or earned a similarly extraordinary honor, or if they have accomplished some historic achievement.
 * Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that a minor league player, manager, coach, executive, or umpire is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability. [fn]

[fn] Articles that are not sourced to published material providing significant coverage of the subject (not just statistics sites) may be nominated for deletion.

Discussion
My reading of the discussion so far is that support seems to be coalescing for having the notability of minor league players depend on existence and use of reliable sources in the article, rather than on meeting particular thresholds. Are we ready to start talking about changing the criterion? Above is my first stab at drafting something along those lines. Please feel free to suggest edits or changes.

What do you think? This standard should be compatible with the general guidelines in WP:N and WP:BIO, and would make clear that the WikiProject doesn't accept the idea that playing one minor league game necessarily demonstrates notability (in the absence of reliable sources). I'll note, however, that there is enough coverage of the minor leagues that many players who haven't "done much" could be designated as notable. For example, Nats minor league pitcher Jack McGeary so far has pitched only 42 innings in rookie league and short season ball, yet he has nearly 100 Ghits on the Washington Post site alone, including a couple of articles that specifically focus on him. BRMo (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A couple of weeks ago I would have argued against this, but after this discussion I have to agree with how you've put it. Unless someone comes up with a better proposal, I could go for this.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My only concern here is that this will lead some people (WKnight for one) to dump a bunch of existing articles onto AFD with "not enough sourcing" notes... I'd prefer if we could identify the articles that need better sourcing and work to improve them first before going around deleting tons of existing articles. Spanneraol (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Shall we add something about how the article could be deleted without such sources? Too implied?  If we added that, or generally agreed to delete improperly-sourced articles (and it survived general community scrutiny), I'd agree.  If we exchanged a bunch of terrible AAA-and-up articles with good articles about any level of player, I'm in.  How about a short (foot)note of explanation that we are trying to avoid a growing trend of people simply copying information from BaseballCube into Wikipedia and calling that an article?  Too much?  I guess I'd like to be able to go to a newer user, like the Fort Myers Miracle guy, and point him to this guideline with a note that, "without good sourcing, your article runs the risk of being deleted".  (Post-ec) Per Spanneraol's legitimate concern, shall we partially grandfather in existing articles?  Give them a month or two months or whatever before we start purging the conveyor belt created articles?  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a footnote warning that poorly sourced articles may be nominated for deletion. Of course, since WP:N has the looser standard that "independent sources could be found for the topic," it's not certain that poorly sourced articles would be deleted in AfD. Regarding Spanneraol's concern, in addition to grandfathering existing articles, I think it would also be reasonable to ask Wknight94 (and other members of the project) to place notability tags on an article a week or two before nominating for deletion and to limit the number of AfD nominations made at one time, thereby allowing editors who are interested in saving the articles time to add sourcing. Is this agreeable? BRMo (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Let's see what other people think.  Maybe move the little RFC tag from WT:MLB to here?  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it. Nice work, guys. Townlake (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess we're still left with the issue of WP:N's "significant coverage". What constitutes "significant"?  Just for clarity, should we include that here?  Otherwise, people may attach one flimsy source to it, say it's independent and reliable and someone else will say it's not "significant" and then we have Battle of the Guidelines.  Sorry, I'm a chess player (hence the username) - just trying to think ahead...  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Wouldn't a reference to the WP:RS guideline address this sufficiently?  I'm not sure any criteria that contradicts that guideline would have staying power anyway... I think it'd be safe to explicitly mention that "career stats and basic biographical info alone are insufficient for the purposes of this requirement" or something.  It'd be a defensible exclusion given that every player in the minors has a career stats page of this type, whether it's eventually copied somewhere independent of their team page or not. Townlake (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it a priori that athletes who have played at a fully professional level are automatically noteworthy, including those in the minor leagues. If sourcing is an problem, then that is already covered by WP:V. AfD hero (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the support (or the desirability) to remove all minor league all-stars or full season AAA players from the guidelines. There is discussion about removing all-stars below AA, which may make sense, but removing the other from this bullet does not. Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the full discussion above, you'll see that we couldn't reach consensus on any specific minor league playing requirements for notability (such as making an all star or playing at the AA level). However, there was consensus that significant coverage from independent reliable sources (beyond just statistics sites) should be required. Of course, you're welcome to reopen the discussion if you like.BRMo (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of reopening the discussion. But typically, no consensus means no change, and here we did change the guidelines around minor leaguers.  On the other hand, I don't necessarily have a problem with a requirement for a secondary non-stat site source, since I would expect that most AA or AAA all-stars, or significant AAA players would be able to meet that. Rlendog (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Last year the change in the minor league guideline to focus on using reliable sources was vetted and agreed upon on this page, and then the main Baseball WikiProject was notified and invited to comment . Five days later, after no opposition was expressed, the change was made.  That process pretty much followed the book on how changes in Wikipedia guidelines are supposed to be made. BRMo (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Another issue - minor league management and umpires

 * The current notability guidelines say that a "commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager" in an affiliated minor league is deemed notable and that "minor league umpires are considered notable only if they have been elected to a league hall of fame or earned a similarly extraordinary honor, or if they have accomplished some historic achievement." I suggest that we use the same approach to minor league management that we're proposing for players--notability must be demonstrated through citation of reliable sources. I've modified the guidelines along those lines. For example, I remember an AfD discussion for a biography of someone who had been a general manager of a team in the low minors for one year, about 20 years ago.  When I searched for information on him, the only thing I could find was verification that he'd been the general manager.  That's obviously not enough to base an article on. Is this ok?  BRMo (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All looks good to me except the 200 games bar for olde-tyme umpires... not sure why we'd make that exception. Otherwise everything looks well-considered and professionally composed! Townlake (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just deleted the specific details at the end of the criteria for major league umpires. Is that ok? BRMo (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Works perfectly for me, hopefully will for others as well - thanks - Townlake (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

College Baseball
Is it the opinion of this wikiproject that collegiate baseball is not notable? There is nothing in the notability guidelines concerning collegiate baseball at all. Are people like Gary Henderson and others who never played professionally not notable? A recent AfD is trying to eliminate a page on a Collegiate Summer League team. What is the wikiproject's opinion on this? There are no notability guidelines here that address this. Seeing as there are dozens of pages on Collegiate Summer League teams, it seems as though this may be an area that needs to be addressed. Kinston eagle (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess there was nothing here because nobody in this WikiProject really gives a crap. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My two cents, which you are perfectly free to ignore:


 * We (as a project) can't even agree on whether minor league players are notable. I'm a bit gunshy about stepping back into the notabilty quicksand any time soon. (Especially when confronted with assertions such as "nobody in this WikiProject really gives a crap") It's quite possible others feel the same way.


 * My personal feeling is that if someone/something passes WP:GNG, they are notable no matter what a specific guideline says. To me, the specific guidelines are shortcuts for helping us to assume a high chance of sources existing that would pass GNG. But I know from recent AfDs that not everyone feels this way.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  00:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with Fabrictramp .  I'll add a suggestion that rather than creating a biographical article about a college player or coach, I'd recommend starting with an article about the team.  That is, rather than writing an article about the star shortstop of the University of California, Santa Cruz Banana Slugs, I'd recommend writing an article about the University of California, Santa Cruz Banana Slugs baseball and cover the player as part of the article on the team.  (Actually, UCSC doesn't have a baseball team, but I love their school mascot.)  I think this approach is in line with the policy of WP:BLP, which says, "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."  Of course, if there is a lot of material from multiple sources (e.g., Stephen Strasburg), then a separate article may be warranted. BRMo (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we at least come to a consensus as to whether Collegiate Summer League teams are presumed notable or not. Nearly every player who makes it to the majors via college ball over the past couple decades has played in these leagues. Of course, nearly all have played American Legion or Little League as well. I feel that they are notable and have become much more so over the past twenty years. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * At the very least, Great Lakes Summer Collegiate League and Florida Collegiate Summer League are sorely lacking sources. I'll see if I can scare any up, but I won't have a lot of time the next several days. Anything you can add would be great.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now added a handful of sources to those two articles, which I hope would be enough to stave off any AfD attempts. The rest of the leagues in the National Alliance of Summer Baseball probably need to be looked at, too, but the real world is calling me.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel that the leagues are notable but the individual teams are not... the league pages are sparse as they are... adding info about the teams to those pages seems to make sense. Spanneraol (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First round draft picks
Question: Is a player chosen in the first round of an MLB Draft notable regardless of any other factors (signed or not, eventual major league player or not)? I would lean towards saying yes. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Our guideline says that notability of minor league players is established by citing reliable sources. My impression is that first round draft picks tend to generate quite a bit of coverage from reliable sources, so they will usually meet that criterion. BRMo (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a good way to think about it, thanks. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor Leaguer Notability Concerns
I see a lot of people supporting otherwise non-notable minor leaguers because said minor leaguers get multiple Google hits when searched. This concerns me, because many of these minor leaguers do not deserve Wikipedia pages. The reason they get more hits on Google is because of the expansion of the Internet and the expansion of the coverage of minor league baseball on the Internet, not because of an increase in notability. Many of these players have accomplished no more than what a minor leaguer in the 1990s or before accomplished, however they maintain pages because their name comes up a lot on Google searches. If, however, I were to create an article for a player who played from 1986 to 1994 in the minors, his page would most likely get deleted because he doesn't get as many Google hits, even though he is as statistically similar and as similarly accomplished as a modern minor leaguer who does get Google hits. I think we need to review notability guidelines for minor leaguers. Alex (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've nominated some career minor leaguers for deletion but had their pages saved because there was "coverage" of them, but little more than records of their playing.  Minor league baseball is professional, but not the most advanced form. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We've "reviwed" minor league notability many many different times. The project remains fairly split on the subject of minor league notability. The last discussion resulted in the compromise that players are notable if they have substantive articles about them rather than just stats sites. Spanneraol (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be blunt, but that is a very dumb way to determine notability. As I stated, an equally accomplished player from the 1980s will not have an article as a player from today, because the 1980s player did not have the Internet to give the false impression of notability. Look at Jackie Reid. He won nearly 300 games in the minor leagues and yet a Google search of him brings up apparently very little that is relevant to him. Nevertheless, he is still notable because of that statistical accomplishment, and no doubt was very notable during the time he played. Now, look at Tyler Mach. He played exactly one year in the minor leagues at the Low-A level, and yet a Google search of him brings up 8,380 hits. It's not because he is notable, it is because he played during a time when minor league coverage expanded greatly on the Internet, and the Internet expanded greatly as a whole. Alex (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have it backwards. The notable minor league players of today are having their articles appropriately kept because sources about them are easier to find, due to the internet.  Many minor leaguers from the past have sources to demonstrate notability, but those are not always easily accessable via Google or other internet search engines and so are being inapprpriately deleted.  The issue predates the 1980s though, and is more serious for pre-1960 minor leaguers.  I mean, seriously, when the PCL was the highest baseball league that played west of the Mississippi River, do you really think that magazines and newspapers in California were not generating significant coverage of PCL players, many of whom never made the Major Leagues due to the circumstances of the time?  Rlendog (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to bring up a specific case. I PROD'd Lou Palmisano a while ago, but it was kept as one editor mentioned that there was some coverage of him.  But please, even  though there has been some coverage, I don't see what makes him notable for our purposes.  I still don't see it and want to go for the AfD. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to read the entire discussion at the top of this page you will see part of the fairly long discussion that led to the current guidelines. The previous guidelines before that involved minor league all-star appearances and lengthy AAA appearances... The minor leagues remain a source of much debate... But in responce to your point, the players of today would be more notable partialy because their is more coverage of them as that coverage satisfies wikipedias general notability guidelines. Less people knew about the minor leaguers in the past because they didnt get the coverage, thus they would be less notable. Spanneraol (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with you, but not quite. While that is true to some extent, many minor leaguers of the past were notable, and had plenty of coverage, but since that coverage was on paper and not the internet it is not as easy to find.  Hence there is a largely false impression that minor leaguers of the past were less notable than equivalent minor leaguers of today. Rlendog (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Does spring training count?
What is the feeling on spring training regarding the criterion: Has appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: MLB, etc.; if a player has played at least one spring training game at the MLB level, does he meet the guideline? Unless the wording specifically excludes spring training or other exhibition games, it would seem that the player meets the standard. Wine Guy  Talk  07:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: This is relevant to a current AfD, Articles for deletion/Edward Campusano. Wine Guy   Talk  07:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any reliable source (such as the databases at mlb.com, baseball-reference.com, etc.) that treats players who've played spring training games with an MLB team as having major league experience, so I'd say no, spring training or other exhibition games don't count. BRMo (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that.. lots of minor leaguers appear in spring training games that have no chance of making the club.. Spanneraol (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I say no. Billy Crystal got a spring training at bat with the Yankees in 2008. That does not make him a professional baseball player. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that exhibition games alone should not be sufficient to satisfy the criterion; although it is possible that a current top prospect, who has so far only appeared with the MLB club during training, may have enough significant coverage to establish notability under #6. I would suggest making an addition to #2 such as:

Have appeared in at least one game (not including spring training or other exhibition games) in any one of the following...

Any other thoughts? Wine Guy  Talk  21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think adding that language is necessary. Those "top prospects" are covered by #7. Spanneraol (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have muddied the waters with the top prospect comment. What I'm really getting at is the fact that some people at AfD may use #2 to keep an article of any minor league player who has played with an MLB club at spring training, including the ones who have no chance of making the club. Wine Guy   Talk  00:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NSPORTS is now a guideline
I noticed that Notability (sports) has been accepted as a guideline. The baseball section of the new guideline is based on what we developed here, so it seems best to have this page now redirect to Notability (sports). I've gone ahead and made that change. Of course, this talk page is still valuable because it documents the discussion that went into developing the baseball portion of the guideline. BRMo (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)