Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson Quezada

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Quezada

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

Was on 40-man roster. The debate rages whether or not that determines notability. Some say yes, others say no. Alex (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the policy for minor-league baseball players? I think either they all should articles or none should. --P Carn (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did he play in a major-league game? If so, yes he's notable; if not, the only way he's notable is if he passes general notability, because minor leaguers aren't notable by dint of being minor leaguers. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Contrary to the opinion of some, there's nothing in WP:ATHLETE debarring minor leaguers; the turn of phrase is "fully professional league," not "highest possible professional league." That being said, this fellow never passed beyond single-A ball and sat out the whole 2009 season. Regardless of the odds of him getting any further than the lowest rungs of the minor leagues, he just hasn't done so. The article can be recreated if he does. RGTraynor 09:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick google search turned up lots of articles about this guy. Apparently he was a promising prospect who spent 2009 on the DL... He should sign with a new team soon and then we can merge it but no reason to delete. Spanneraol (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Spanneraol, numerous google hits. Once he signs with a team a merger can be discussed.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that he was non-tendered after going no higher than Class A and spending a year on the DL suggests he's no longer much of a prospect. Number of Google hits is not a good indicator of whether there's enough reliable source material to support an article. BRMo (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Giants and Span.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BRMo et al. Just because someone has hits on google does not automaticaly establish notability. Wizardman 15:48, 24 December 2009 (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.