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 delete.
Wizardman 15:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep Does not meet
WP:NBASE, but does appear to meet
WP:NCOLLATH. He was a first-team All-American for Baseball America, what appears to be one of only two recognized sources for that year (see
1989 College Baseball All-America Team). Admittedly, college baseball is well below football or basketball, but he was a first-team selection. Obviously would be nice if he were a unanimous selection, but since he made one of only two teams we could say he is a consensus selection, so I would say he meets the standard to presume notability. Considering the fact that they player's prime was 25-30 years ago, I think finding sources will be a challenge. In view of that, I give the presumption its due, presume sources are out there, and say keep.
RonSigPi (
talk) 22:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. College baseball all-americans were intentionally admitted from
WP:NSPORTS because of their lack of general coverage. Weak professional career.. lack of sourcing that would rise to GNG.
Spanneraol (
talk) 12:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Can you illustrate where that position reached a consensus? Reading the current baseball guideline, it talks about minor league players and major league players, but is silent on American college players.
WP:NHOOPS is also silent on college players, but first-team All-Americans are given the presumption.
WP:NGRIDIRON has similar negative language to what WP:NBASE states (addressing professionals only), yet first-team All-Americans have constructively been given the presumption. At worst we have a conflict: WP:NBASE says no to the presumption, WP:COLLATH says yes to the presumption. However, to me its more WP:NBASE is silent while WP:COLLATH says yes. Usually, if one guideline is met, then that is enough (look at
Nico Siragusa and
Evan Bradds). I would be willing to entertain your position if you can show where there was consensus to intentionally omit baseball All-Americans, but otherwise meeting WP:COLLATH leads for me.
RonSigPi (
talk) 21:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
To me, the vote is split. Yes, there were more "option 3" than "option 2", but about half those seem to just say "the list is too long." Its not a vote and arguments of that, to me, are nor credible. That being said, some good points were raised on both sides. You are right baseball receives far less that football, but
EFL Championship receives far less coverage than the
Premier League and the presumption is still valid. College football and basketball receive A LOT of coverage, so its not really a fair comparison. That is why I am comfortable with a first team All-American. A football Honorable Mention is going to likely be more notable than in baseball. Here we have a 1st team guy. I think of it as an award - not a high as the Golden Spikes, but an award none the less (usually you do get some sort of certificate for what its worth). I understand your concern, but I am not seeing enough to go against WP:NCOLLATH. So I stay with weak keep (weak because I do think your side/the delete side make valid enough points that its not a sure fire keep by any means).
RonSigPi (
talk) 00:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Clearly doesn't meet
WP:GNG or
WP:BASE/N. I don't think this meets
WP:NCOLLATH either. All-American is not a full fledged "award" and the lack of coverage suggests we shouldn't extend notability to automatically cover it. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 16:09, 14 April 2017 (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.
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 delete.
Wizardman 15:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep Does not meet
WP:NBASE, but does appear to meet
WP:NCOLLATH. He was a first-team All-American for Baseball America, what appears to be one of only two recognized sources for that year (see
1989 College Baseball All-America Team). Admittedly, college baseball is well below football or basketball, but he was a first-team selection. Obviously would be nice if he were a unanimous selection, but since he made one of only two teams we could say he is a consensus selection, so I would say he meets the standard to presume notability. Considering the fact that they player's prime was 25-30 years ago, I think finding sources will be a challenge. In view of that, I give the presumption its due, presume sources are out there, and say keep.
RonSigPi (
talk) 22:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. College baseball all-americans were intentionally admitted from
WP:NSPORTS because of their lack of general coverage. Weak professional career.. lack of sourcing that would rise to GNG.
Spanneraol (
talk) 12:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Can you illustrate where that position reached a consensus? Reading the current baseball guideline, it talks about minor league players and major league players, but is silent on American college players.
WP:NHOOPS is also silent on college players, but first-team All-Americans are given the presumption.
WP:NGRIDIRON has similar negative language to what WP:NBASE states (addressing professionals only), yet first-team All-Americans have constructively been given the presumption. At worst we have a conflict: WP:NBASE says no to the presumption, WP:COLLATH says yes to the presumption. However, to me its more WP:NBASE is silent while WP:COLLATH says yes. Usually, if one guideline is met, then that is enough (look at
Nico Siragusa and
Evan Bradds). I would be willing to entertain your position if you can show where there was consensus to intentionally omit baseball All-Americans, but otherwise meeting WP:COLLATH leads for me.
RonSigPi (
talk) 21:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
To me, the vote is split. Yes, there were more "option 3" than "option 2", but about half those seem to just say "the list is too long." Its not a vote and arguments of that, to me, are nor credible. That being said, some good points were raised on both sides. You are right baseball receives far less that football, but
EFL Championship receives far less coverage than the
Premier League and the presumption is still valid. College football and basketball receive A LOT of coverage, so its not really a fair comparison. That is why I am comfortable with a first team All-American. A football Honorable Mention is going to likely be more notable than in baseball. Here we have a 1st team guy. I think of it as an award - not a high as the Golden Spikes, but an award none the less (usually you do get some sort of certificate for what its worth). I understand your concern, but I am not seeing enough to go against WP:NCOLLATH. So I stay with weak keep (weak because I do think your side/the delete side make valid enough points that its not a sure fire keep by any means).
RonSigPi (
talk) 00:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Clearly doesn't meet
WP:GNG or
WP:BASE/N. I don't think this meets
WP:NCOLLATH either. All-American is not a full fledged "award" and the lack of coverage suggests we shouldn't extend notability to automatically cover it. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 16:09, 14 April 2017 (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.