Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Oxley

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 20:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Oxley

[edit]
Henry Oxley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Played in 3 major league games and never got a hit. No real coverage other than comprehensive reference books. Fails the general notability guideline. Mechanical listings in reference books do not establish notability. Gigs (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep clearly meets standards met in WP:WPBB/N, Specifically #2: "Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues" -- as a player, subject played for the New York Gothams (now called the San Francisco Giants) for at least three games.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as there are reliable third-party sources, appearing in a Major League game is firmly established notability, even 100+ years on. DarkAudit (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our current standards make clear that his article belongs here, and the current practice makes sense. Completeness is a virtue. People looking for information on major league baseball expect, reasonably, that they will be able to find verifiable information here about everyone who has played in a major league game. We have such verifiable information for Henry Oxley. There is even the interesting detail that he is one of only three players from PEI in major league history. There is no good reason to delete this, and to do so does damage to Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of baseball. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sort of information can be preserved by being merged into larger articles that contain an entire roster. This is what we did with non-notable pokemon, and what is ongoing with non-notable asteroids. Hundreds of thousands of tiny articles on non-notable sports players is an unsustainable situation, that will eventually have to be addressed. Gigs (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll bite excactly how is it "unsustainable" ??--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe I have a unique perspective since I spent many hours cleaning up the unsourced BLP backlog, which was laden with non-notable and non-deletable sports benchwarmers. Every additional article is additional editorial workload. Every additional article is another chance for libel and slander to slip through the cracks, and get us sued, or for vandalism to linger, making us look bad. Fewer articles are easier to maintain and watch. Throughout our history we have had several large classes of articles merged down for maintainability and notability reasons. Pokemon, fictional elements, asteroids, etc. It is only a matter of time until the same thing happens to sports people articles. Maybe it will take a lawsuit or a public embarrassment, but I would hope that the people active in editing sports articles would address the issue sooner than that. Gigs (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes each article requires more effort to maintain. But there's a great distance between "extra work" and "unsustainable" on Wikipedia. The comments about libel or slander don't really apply here--aside from having quality content, it's a baseball player from 1884. But if the purpose is to avoid a lawsuit, then just shut down Wikipeida.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per meeting WP:BASE/N. Major league player. Penale52 (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Played in MLB. Nuff said. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Those coming and citing NSPORTS needs to recognize that notability by playing in a professional league is a presumption, and in certain exceptions, like this one, can be challenged if no sources ever come about to expand the article in more detail. We're not a who's who , we're an encyclopedia. This is a clear cut case where plenty of time has elapsed for sources to come out (100+ years) and yet there doesn't appear to be any beyond primary sourcing on the few games played. This has no potential to develop further and ergo is not an appropriate article on WP. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep with newfound sources, but a reminder to all those that argue "Keep"/"Speedy Keep" that the criteria in NSPORTS are only presumptions and can be challenged fairly in cases like this. Those criteria are not guarantees for retention in exceptional cases. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only things that we can verify about this individual involve his birth, death and that he played three games of professional baseball. The article certainly fails the general notability guideline, and while it may technically pass NSPORTS, let's invoke common sense here. If we cannot report any additional verifiable information about this individual, it's pointless to keep a sub-stub like this around. Jogurney (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I disagree. Stub articles are a valuable part of any encyclopedia, Wikipedia included. And in this case, it leaves room for the article to be improved when more information is discovered by editors. There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no deadline, but after five years in such a state, it is completely reasonable to ask for some demonstration of GNG-compliance. I absolutely agree that stub articles are useful to Wikipedia, but this one shows no sign at all of being expandable. It's time to delete this. Jogurney (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please Pick one either there is no deadline, or the deadline is five years. I don't personally care which position you take, but you cannot logically defend both. By the way, the article has expanded significantly in the past few days.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, no need for false dichotomies here. We don't have a strict deadline, but five years is plenty to show GNG-compliance. This article has been expanded in the past few days, but only with the most trivial of coverage. It clearly fails GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Clearly fails GNG?" On what basis? Did you check century old offline and out of print sources? One can perhaps conclude that "it hasn't been demostrated to meet GNG" but in the absence of such a search it can hardly be said to clearly fail GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • My basis for saying the article clearly fails the GNG is I read the citations and found a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. What we have is a few entries in statistics databases (trivial, routine), some census records (trivial, routine) and two mentions in books that are completely trivial. I would like to understand why you think that shows GNG compliance. I don't see the point in arguing about sources that are not cited and don't exist. Jogurney (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • GNG is based on all reliable sources, whether cited in the article or not. Rlendog (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Which is why I, and others, searched for available sources before voting (there is no point talking about potential coverage in reliable sources that may or may not exist). It's been five years since this article was created - plenty of time to demonstrate GNG compliance. Jogurney (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it's not reasonable at all. It's actually contrary to policies/guidelines to do so. See WP:GTD: "first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." Since Gigs plainly did not do this, it's a bad nomination. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is absolutely no obligation to search for sources before nominating something. It's a good idea to do so, to avoid wasting everyone's time, and I did do a cursory search, and came up with pretty much nothing, which is what everyone else seems to be coming up with. Gigs (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course it's reasonable to ask whether this article can satisfy the GNG after five years without any effort to demonstrate GNG-compliance. My own searches on this individual produced nothing more than what it currently cited in the article - which is nowhere close to satisfying the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:GNG. --KarlB (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearl passes WP:WPBB/N and likely to pass WP:GNG. It appears that a talk page posting made by the nominator has drawn the recent delete voters here to make a point. Not sure if the recent delete voters have looked for other sources or not. I did a quick google search and found two books at Google books that discuss his career. With players from the 19th Century, much of the source material is not available on-line. As one of the first Canadians to pay MLB, I expect there to even more information out there than can be located through a quick google search. Cbl62 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Please AGF; my participation in this discussion is not to make a point. I did look for online sources and found nothing except what was already cited on the article page (plus some similar statistics database entries like SI.com). I also found no books covering this person (and be wary of Wikipedia mirrors that are posted at Google Books). That said, if you have some additional sources that show the article satisfies the GNG, I'm happy to change my vote. Jogurney (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. I do assume good faith, but the speed with which three delete votes showed up after the nominator posted elsewhere was striking. I have now added a number of additional sources and information. Will look for more later. Cbl62 (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my and their credit, I assumed if anything the watchers of the sports notability talk page would be more biased toward keep than delete. It was not intended to solicit votes one way or the other, but to rather point out the way that the SNGs are often (ab)used, as part of an ongoing conversation I have been having with the NSPORTs talk page participants. Maybe I should have waited until the AfD closed to avoid turning this AfD into a proxy for the larger debate. Gigs (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment While I admire the determination to add census records, I don't think that helps the case. Clearly, this guy existed. The question is, is he notable? The guideline states that WP:WPBB/N gives presumed notability, but sometimes in cases like this, you have to test whether notability does exist. The sources so far seem to be only trivial mentions. I also looked for sources, and didn't find anything already mentioned in the article --KarlB (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more than just census records. He's discussed in two books by baseball historian Peter Morris. He played for two MLB teams and also had a career in the minors. For a 19th Century ball player (where source material is not readily accessible on line), that's pretty darn good. Cbl62 (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not critiquing the census records and they are useful if the article is kept. The question is, what about significant coverage of the subject (vs just mentioning his name) or telling one story about the green mountains quip? --KarlB (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every time a player with minimal (but greater than zero) MLB experience is brought to AfD, the discussion is closed as keep. I wish I had a full record of it, but it seems to happen at least once a quarter, if not once every other month. Significant coverage exists for all of these individuals, though it is not necessarily easily accessible to those of us in the internet generation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per established consensus. It is reasonable that readers that are fans of baseball in general and in this case, the Giants, would want to look for information on players from the teams early days and we should provide that service with as much information as we can locate about these players. Spanneraol (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:BASE/N with room to spare. Article is adequately sourced. Rlendog (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:BASE/N. There is probably coverage for the person in harder to access sources if people really wanted to go hunting which would demonstrate WP:GNG more clearly. --LauraHale (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per established consensus about what constitutes notability at WP:Baseball and WP:Nsports. Patken4 (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This is the problem; everyone is saying basically the same thing - there are sources, we just need to find them. If that is the case, then why haven't they come to light after 5 years? There are very few other articles that we keep in the hope that new sources will come to light; instead, the standard elsewhere is, delete, with no prejudice to recreation. I think at this point, the onus should be on those defending this article to find *real* sources. Perhaps the guideline should be changed to say, if an article is challenged, you have X months to demonstrate significant coverage; if it can't be found, the article is deleted, and can be userfied/etc with no prejudice to recreation - but keeping thousands of stubs out there in the hope that someone will do the research and bring new facts to light is silly. This article for example - there are now lots of sources in this article, but NO significant coverage - just census records, grave sites, and a mention in 2 books. That does not make WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Also per @Spanneraol's comment above, I must disagree; there are people who are researching their minor league teams as well, or their high school teams, or any number of other things, but just because someone is looking for it doesn't mean wikipedia should have it. It would be great if someone just created sportsopedia, that would accept articles on any sport, any sport player, any coach, any game - then all of the sports stuff could go there and we wouldn't have to have these debates here.--KarlB (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Karl. Your aspiration for "all of the sports stuff" to just go away (to sportopedia or elsewhere) seems to reflect a view that sports are less worthy than other topics. Millions of people the world over disagree and much prefer to devote their attention to sports than such things as celebrities, hedge fund managers, and politicos. The beauty of Wikipedia is that there's room for all areas of interest, provided a basic level of notability is met, which it is here. Cbl62 (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, that wasn't worded well. Of course sports are worthy of note in wikipedia; but there are lots of things about sports that would never be accepted at wikipedia, but that sports people would love to have; the same holds for star wars and wookiepedia; think about it - if you're a completionist, you'd want a full record for every player, every game they played, how many points they scored; etc - a sportsopedia could be incredibly rich in detail for those who want a complete picture. But that's not wikipedia. Some sports articles belong in wikipedia, but they should follow the same notability guidelines. I think those who are completionists, and would like an article about every baseball player that ever lived, they are working on the wrong wiki - which was why I thought it would be great if something different could be created for sports. (I note baseball wikia, but seems poorly populated). And, in this particular case, I think we are very far from GNG. A few passing mentions does not make GNG.--KarlB (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* Nobody here is suggesting that there should be an article on every baseball player or every game. Those who have played MLB, however, are the cream of the cream the top .00001 percent of the sport. Cbl62 (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
look at this quote from above: "Completeness is a virtue. People looking for information on major league baseball expect, reasonably, that they will be able to find verifiable information here about everyone who has played in a major league game." Why can't you just replace that with minor league baseball - why shouldn't wikipedia provide information about *those* players? Or what about college football? Or highschool basketball, etc? My point is, wikipedia is a poor source if you want complete information; it is a great source if you want notable information and articles. Even if these guys are at the top of their game, if no-one ever wrote an article about them, why should we keep it? Completionism is not a goal of wikipedia. Having a full roster is not a goal of wikipedia.--KarlB (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd go with "because the consensus is to not do that" -- at least for a short answer.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your basis for saying "no-one ever wrote an article about" Oxley? Have you looked up every 19th century newspaper or sports periodical that may have covered him? Or are you basing it just on what you found on the internet or in whatever limited 19th century periodicals may be covered in the local library? Rlendog (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - but again, this standard is not applied to any other wikipedia articles. The presumption here is being challenged, and that presumption has not been answered. If more research turns up, then the article can be recreated - but why should the article stand based on an (unproven) assumption? --KarlB (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you haven't provided a valid basis for challenging the presumption. Merely saying "I challenge the presumption" without giving any basis for an assersion that this particular subject would not meet GNG is hardly adequate when that presumption is as much a guideline as the presumption in GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Why should the article stand based on an (unproven) assumption?" Because the presumption in the relevant notability guideline has been proven. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I do. Spanneraol (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So do I.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So why aren't you making an argument based on WP:GNG? And, if you are arguing based on GNG, where are the sources that provide significant coverage? I only see a mention in two books. Census/etc is not relevant for notability.--KarlB (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need at this point, but when I have more time I can start banging the horse carcass with a rod.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Oxley&oldid=1077429860"