Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stetson Allie

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. Missvain (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stetson Allie

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage is routine or transactional or youth sports coverage. Non-notable minor leaguer. SportingFlyer T·C 14:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You need to do some more WP:BEFORE. He's a notable bust with lots of coverage.[1][2][3] That's just a start, but I'm more focused on the election right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I admit those articles cover him decently, they are all prospect watches from the media market for the team that drafted him, and I can't find coverage from anywhere else. I don't think he's a "notable bust" but rather just a non-notable minor leaguer. SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are articles in reliable sources that cover him in significant depth. That's GNG. Arguments that WP:ITSLOCAL don't apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't make him notable. He's a washed out prospect who only received coverage from the media market of the team that drafted him and the coverage is routine. Minor leaguers are rarely notable, and he does not appear to be. SportingFlyer T·C 18:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no coverage that actually rises to the level of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching turns up several instances of meaningful media coverage.[4] [5] [6]. I don't see how these articles fail to constitute notability. Also, I think its not particularly civil to call him a "washed out prospect." Our job is to assess notability, not making judgments about the subject of the article. And, respectfully, I think the media coverage he has received makes him notable. And if that means other minor leaguers are notable, then so be it. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are sufficient in terms of WP:GNG. They're all blogs such as SportsNation. Almost every minor leaguer will receive at least some coverage, but that doesn't mean they're notable for Wikipedia purposes. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet GNG per above sources. I'm perfectly fine with having more articles on minor leaguers. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:12, 2 December 2020 (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.