Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurickson Profar (2nd 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 _{Operation Big Bear} 19:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jurickson Profar

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

Minor league baseball player with no other significant accomplishments. see WP:BASEBALL/N. Student7 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Top prospect generating mountains of coverage. Meets GNG.[1][2] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He might be the best prospect in baseball. Definitely notable enough for an article.--Yankees10 18:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequate coverage to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Passes GNG with ample reliable sources. Electric Catfish 21:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as player meets notability requirements. AutomaticStrikeout 22:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One of the problems here is that you have about 10,000 professionals playing in all continents in what they consider "major" leagues. Once you've include "wonderful" prospects from minor leagues, this raises the total to maybe 20-30,000. The sheer numbers gets preposterous after a while. Worse, we haven't begun to address athletes who were really in the majors who retired before the 21st century.

Why can't we wait until his wonderfulness becomes so obvious, that they move him up to the majors to warm a bench? Student7 (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "wonderfulness" is obvious based on the coverage in reliable sources that meets the standards of GNG. That trumps a project-specific notability guideline any day of the week. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to your other comments, there are far fewer than 10,000 active baseball players, at least notable ones. Every 19th century major leaguer has a wiki page, even if it's just a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming these numbers are correct, do Wikipedia's servers not have space for 20-30 thousand professional baseball players who meet WP:GNG or WP:BASEBALL/N? Unless that is the case, I am not seeing a problem. Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily meets the GNG with even cursory research. This nomination smells like someone making a WP:POINT. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normally. minor league players are not notable. This is the exception that proves the rule based on multiple, reliable and independent sources per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Close? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree with Yankees10 that he might be even more notable later, he's plenty notable now. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 17:26, 13 August 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.