Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Coyle (baseball)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. —ScottyWong— 16:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sean Coyle (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable minor league ballplayer. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
*Delete fails WP:BASEBALL/N (never played in the majors) and GNG Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. He was a 3rd round pick, Pennsylvania player of the year, and passes WP:GNG. A quick search turns up abundant WP:SIGCOV. E.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Cbl62 (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. There's enough sources of him as a prospect to say he passes GNG. Changing to Keep Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- If we're keeping failed professional baseball players on the grounds that they were a high school player of the year, we have serious notability issues. This should be an open and shut fails WP:NBASE case. SportingFlyer T·C 17:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- If the player has the significant coverage in independent, reliable sources required to pass GNG, then it shouldn't matter whether he fails NBASE. If you want to argue that the sources that Cbl62 linked don't meet GNG, then that's your prerogative, but I think they do which is why I changed to keep. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think there's problems with all of those articles. Six of them are about a former high schooler currently working his way through the minors, one is Bleacher Report, one is an interview, many (NESN, Masslive) are transactional about the fact he signed with Boston or with Baltimore, Bleacher Report is a fan site, and one's the team's "minor league report." WP:NBASE makes it pretty clear that if you don't meet the guideline, you have to do some pretty heavy lifting in order to be notable, because we could probably write an article on the majority of minor leaguers. Considering all of the coverage here is either prep sports coverage or from one of the two cities whose organisations he was in (including the ESPN interview, which was with their Red Sox blog), we can't really say he had a notable enough career for a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with the statement that "WP:NBASE makes it pretty clear that if you don't meet the guideline, you have to do some pretty heavy lifting in order to be notable, because we could probably write an article on the majority of minor leaguers." WP:BASE says "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. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject." Which is essentially GNG - no more, no less. We have had many articles on minor leaguers come to AfD and get deleted because there was no evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. But if an article on a minor leaguer meets that standard there is no more reason to delete it than any other article that meets the GNG standard. Rlendog (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Then we'd have articles on a majority of minor leaguers, and we don't. GNG is not a be all end all - we do have WP:NOT guidelines like NOTNEWS which not only prevents us from reporting on current events, but allows us to figure out if someone's receiving certain coverage because the coverage is routine. Some coverage for players who haven't reached the majors isn't routine, but I see nothing here which demonstrates he's more or less notable than any other random minor leaguer. SportingFlyer T·C 21:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with the statement that "WP:NBASE makes it pretty clear that if you don't meet the guideline, you have to do some pretty heavy lifting in order to be notable, because we could probably write an article on the majority of minor leaguers." WP:BASE says "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. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject." Which is essentially GNG - no more, no less. We have had many articles on minor leaguers come to AfD and get deleted because there was no evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. But if an article on a minor leaguer meets that standard there is no more reason to delete it than any other article that meets the GNG standard. Rlendog (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think there's problems with all of those articles. Six of them are about a former high schooler currently working his way through the minors, one is Bleacher Report, one is an interview, many (NESN, Masslive) are transactional about the fact he signed with Boston or with Baltimore, Bleacher Report is a fan site, and one's the team's "minor league report." WP:NBASE makes it pretty clear that if you don't meet the guideline, you have to do some pretty heavy lifting in order to be notable, because we could probably write an article on the majority of minor leaguers. Considering all of the coverage here is either prep sports coverage or from one of the two cities whose organisations he was in (including the ESPN interview, which was with their Red Sox blog), we can't really say he had a notable enough career for a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- If the player has the significant coverage in independent, reliable sources required to pass GNG, then it shouldn't matter whether he fails NBASE. If you want to argue that the sources that Cbl62 linked don't meet GNG, then that's your prerogative, but I think they do which is why I changed to keep. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- If we're keeping failed professional baseball players on the grounds that they were a high school player of the year, we have serious notability issues. This should be an open and shut fails WP:NBASE case. SportingFlyer T·C 17:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. There's enough sources of him as a prospect to say he passes GNG. Changing to Keep Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Cbl. We're not voting !keep because he was a "high school player of the year", but because the totality of his life and career to this point have resulted in enough significant coverage independent of the subject in reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per SportingFlyer's nomination rationale and excellent analysis of the sources presented here. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBASE.4meter4 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2021 (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.