Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Tigers minor league players (3rd nomination)

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. Wizardman 15:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Tigers minor league players

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to say "Delete" because I don't like these minor league articles, but when trying to find something to back up my argument, I came across WP:CSC so I decided these types of articles should be "Keep":

"2. Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this is not applicable for living people. - See WP:LISTPEOPLE.)"

But then I followed the WP:LISTPEOPLE link and it says:

"A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met:

* The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement."

The players don't meet WP:GNG (that's why they're on this list), so I'm changing my mind again and saying "Delete". — X96lee15 (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Even if the lists just include the roster templates they are important as they are currently the only place on the internet that you can see every player in the farm system on one page. Deleting these pages will also have the effect of leading to the creation of tons more questionable minor league player articles. Spanneraol (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also agree that the templates transcluded on this article is useful. I don't know how to handle that in this AFD. These minor league articles serve two purposes: 1) transclude all organization templates (useful) and 2) holding pen for non-notable minor league players (not useful, IMO). — X96lee15 (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thats then a content dispute that could be discussed elsewhere and not a rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. @X96lee15:, this meets WP:CSC#2 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it met CSC #2 also, but it specifically says it doesn't apply to lists of living people. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CSC#2 states that it does not apply to living persons, so cannot be used as a justification. However WP:BASEBALL/N states that "Some minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players (for example, Minnesota Twins minor league players). This is exactly this situation. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree CSC #2 doesn't apply, but CSC #2 points to WP:LISTPEOPLE which is pretty explicit in saying that people in lists of living people need to be notable. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree with what WP:BASEBALL/N says, but now reading WP:LISTPEOPLE, IMO that portion of WP:BASEBALL/N is invalid (assuming LISTPEOPLE trumps a project's notability guidelines) . — X96lee15 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. X96lee15 (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list may indeed be interesting and useful for fans, but since many of the individuals lack the references needed to establish notability by Wikipedia standards, this and similar lists violate the guideline WP:LISTPEOPLE, which says in part: "A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement...." Having a list of bios of nonnotable minor league baseball players is similar to including nonnotable residents of some town in the article about the town, or nonnotable alumni of a college in the article about the college. Wikipedia is not a directory. There are other places on the internet where fans can look up the present roster of a minor league team. The team being notable does not justify having an article which is a directory of all its nonnotable members, any more than a college being notable justifies having a list of all its alumni, students or faculty. The only argument which has any traction would be an "ignore all rules" justification that these lists are a way to avoid having articles about all the individual nonnotable players. Edison (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all. This is not a workable venue to discuss overturning a longstanding comprehensive system of encyclopedic coverage, one that has been supported by consensus for years. If someone really thinks that wiping away all this material would improve our coverage of baseball, open a comprehensive RfC at WP:BASEBALL. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Larry and Spanneraol. This is POINTy. Rlendog (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Wikipedia community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2014 (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.