Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Tigers minor league players

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. There is a weak consensus that these lists/articles are appropriate. Davewild (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Tigers minor league players

These pages are a nice idea but they border on indiscriminate information. Not only that but they will be impossible to maintain. It's hard enough maintaining the main roster much less the roster of the 5-6 minor league teams for each franchise. Many minor leaguers do not nor will they ever have articles, so this isn't that useful either. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a starter, but this is also just redundant. Those templates already exist as part of the articles for the specific minor league teams. While they're tough to keep current, WP:NOTNEWS. The notability guidelines laid out by WP:BASEBALL say "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." Probably many of the players for whom there are little mini-biographies at the top of the pages will go on to appear in the Major Leagues (and thus attain notability, per WP:BASEBALL at the very least), and when they do, articles on them can be written. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have CFD'd Category: Lists of minor league baseball players, as it would be wholly unneeded were this AFD to go through. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination is factually incorrect--not only is it possible to keep these rosters maintained, they have been maintained. I'm not sure why we're even discussing the roster templates, given that it's the minor league pages--a separate concept--which are under discussion. The purpose of these pages is to provide a place to discuss members of a minor league organization who are not yet sufficiently notable to justify a separate article. Nominator would do us all a favor by explaining how these articles are indiscriminate, or perhaps even suggesting what more discriminating criteria might look like. These articles were born out of extensive discussion on the WP:BASEBALL talk pages; it's disappointing to be confronted with such a nomination. Mackensen (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ~~So 150 or so non-notable people combine to satisfy notability requirements for an article? Is this what you're saying? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 09:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)~~ Striking that, because I'd be arguing for the deletion of dozens of pages about particular minor league teams with that comment. Pages like these are still redundant to those pages, however. The little mini-biographies are of no real value, either - why do we need a page full of stubs about non-notable people? When they reach the Major Leagues, write individual articles then. There's no hurry, so I don't know what the problem with that would be. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 10:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The flaw in your reasoning is that somebody wants to write about the topic. What reason is there, in policy, to tell them that they're wrong? Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - agree with Mackensen. There is no requirement that every item in a list should be notable, and I don't see that listing players in a particular team is 'indiscriminate'. Neither do I understand how a collection of articles for individual players can be combined to reconstruct a deleted team list. Occuli (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: WP:NNC is pretty clear: notability requirements are much lower for inclusion within an article. Also, we have an abundance of people at WP:MLB clamoring to add articles for even the least notable minor league players - surely they would be willing to maintain these lists. If maintenance costs are stated as grounds for deletion somewhere, I've never seen it. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: If these pages were taken to their logical conclusion, they would each include mini-bios on some 180-200 non-notable players. Each of the pages would be several hundred thousand bytes long. That's assuming the bios remain at one short paragraph each. Devoted fans, friends and family, would probably stretch most beyond that though. HurricaneSarah (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment The one player who is already on this page, Zachary Simons, seems to be notable since his bio is supported by third party sources and he is a professional athlete. This is all that is required by WP:BIO. Why not just make an article for him? HurricaneSarah (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N calls for "significant coverage". It's hard to determine whether either independent source is devoting significant coverage to Simons since one is a broken link and the other is a newspaper not available to me. But neither mention Simons in the title. Unless there is clearer evidence, I would vote to delete Simons if the current content were broken out into a separate article. To your first point, the list would surely be split into smaller pages before reaching several hundred thousand bytes long. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a maintenance question, not a question of principle, and not limited to this topic. Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Listing the key players in a minor league system is certainly notable. These pages are being maintained and will be, so the nomination on it's face is invalid. The information is useful, multiple sources can verify the information, it will be maintained... there is no reason to remove them. Spanneraol (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the content of articles isn't limited as much, this is like the notable people sections of communities: we have no real need or good reason to include a list of people who share nothing that makes them notable. Anyway, this doesn't necessarily discriminate on its "membership", as it logically should have many more than 200 people: I'm sure that, over the decades, there have been many more people on Tigers minor league teams than just how many there are now. Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been discussion/consensus to remove such lists of notable community members? I see such lists all over. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beg pardon, but they share membership in a professional sports organization, with all that such membership implies and entails. Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment. Judging from the comments so far not everyone is aware that three separate articles are listed, with varying levels of content. Mackensen (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are all in the process of being created and will eventually have lots more info on them. Spanneraol (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All: In addition to the excellent points raised by my colleagues above, these would make excellent companion pages for the teams that have historical listings of their minor league affiliates. It helps to explain the recent minor league history of the club. As per my own comments at WT:BASEBALL, criteria for inclusion would have to be (and I believe, are being) strictly defined, using WP:N as an umbrella and consensus at WP:MLB for even more stringent guidelines. I can assure any and all delete voters who are worried about page maintenance that there are indeed a plethora of Wikipedians ready to maintain articles about various minor leaguers - there are certainly enough of them created on a regular basis. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Many players in these articles don't have a separate Wikipedia article. These pages provide a place for key players in a minor league system. AdjustShift (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.