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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R. E. Hillebrand

[edit]

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

no sourced birth date, no sourced death date, played one game, sources are lacking information other than his statistics from a single baseball game. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a who's who;there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Per WP:NBASEBALL, listings of statistics aren't enough to establish notability. Delete. Müdigkeit (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBASE, to maintain the comprehensive coverage of baseball players who have appeared in major competition, and with the likelihood that this article can be improved significantly through new sources. Johnlp (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played in Major League Baseball. Spanneraol (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All MLB players are considered WP:N regardless how short their careers were.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since he played in The MLB. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NBASE says "Baseball figures are presumed notable if they have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball". He has, so he is notable. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBASE and all the above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What we do now have is a consensus that this article meets WP:NBASE, contrary to my erronerous claim above. What we don't have is:

A consensus that this meets WP:GNG
A consensus that this meets WP:NOT, which is required per WP:N regardless of notability guidelines.--Müdigkeit (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NSPORTS states in its opening paragraph and in bold: The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Note that is GNG OR SSC and NBASE is the SSC. Can you please say more about WP:NOT and why you think this is necessary? Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you read the WP:NSPORTS FAQ? It clearly states

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?                                                                                                A2: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)

So no, not that simple- if we fail to find further sources showing notability, it will get deleted regardless of WP:NSPORTS criteria met. (Good luck finding a source that shows significant coverage) From WP:NOTNEWS:

Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)

The only coverage recieved- in this case- was about the partipiciation in a single baseball match. Now, that match itself fails any notability criteria by miles.

WP:NOTGENEALOGY states:

Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on- or offline). Less well known people may be mentioned within other articles.

R.E Hillebrand is clearly less well known, and was never featured in several external sources... he only exists in some statistics as one of many.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Müdigkeit. Well, as I have said more than once elsewhere, these "guidelines" do not provide adequate guidance because they are contradictory. We cannot rely on them, hence all the arguments about them in various AfDs, so it comes down to individual preference. You obviously believe that someone who just passes NBASE at its minimum level should not have an article and only be in a list somewhere. Fine, I respect your point of view and can see where you're coming from. If it wasn't for the lack of precision in the guidelines, I might agree with you but, like most of the other people in this AfD so far, I think "completeness" is a necessary project aim and so, given that we have NBASE and he passes that, he should have an article, however small. I am concerned about his name, though, per the evidence found by Zagalejo (see below). Jack | ^{talk page} 06:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT is not a guideline. It is a policy. And WP:N states that WP:NOT must be met in addition to notability guidelines.--Müdigkeit (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have claimed that "The only coverage recieved- in this case- was about the partipiciation in a single baseball match. Now, that match itself fails any notability criteria by miles." Have you actually done an exhaustive check of sources from the early 1900s and possibly earlier, for coverage of this player, or are you just relying on the coverage that happens to be readily available on the internet today? Because any offline coverage would be relevant as well. Rlendog (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An exhaustive check? No, of course not. Some sources may be lost, and the effort to evaluate some possible sources is simply too high. A better wording would be indeed "The only coverage recieved and known to partipiciants of this AfD". Still, that is enough. Unless you can show that players playing only briefly during that time usually got significant coverage.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, so those lost sources and sources that you feel would take too much effort are relevant. Hence the WP:NBASE guideline. Rlendog (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not clear to me that "R.E. Hillebrand" is his correct name. Baseball-Reference just lists him as "Hillebrand", with a note that says "also Hildebrand". The Chicago Tribune recap of his game refers to him as "Hillerbrand", with no first name given. He is mentioned in a sub-headline: "Youngster Named Hillerbrand Is Right Field for Chicago". Then there's one sentence about him in the article body: "Hillerbrand, a youngster whom Selee picked up to help out, waited for a walk." The article is "Colts Beat the Pirates" from August 30, 1902. It's available on ProQuest. (And to clarify, "Colts" was an older nickname for the Chicago NL team, and was still used in 1902.)

Now, it's possible that there is more information on this guy somewhere, but without having a clear idea what his actual name was, searching will be pretty difficult. I wonder if maybe the "R.E." part of his name was actually a misinterpreted "RF" (ie, right fielder). I'm curious where those stats websites got their information. Zagalejo^^^ 01:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Under no circumstances would deletion be the right thing to do here. Completeness is an encyclopedic necessity. If we are going to purport cover major league baseball players, it makes no sense to exclude some small subset of those players. Removing information about players like this one accomplishes nothing except damaging the quality of our coverage of baseball. Now, if someone wants to propose creating a list of players who've played in only one game, similar to the existing List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names, that could be a subject for discussion--but even then, this would be, at most, merged and redirected to such a list, not deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:(R.E.) Hillebrandt is in that list already.--Müdigkeit (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Per WP:NBASE. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NBASE and longstanding consensus that players who have played in the Majors, even if for just one game, are notable enough for an article. This is particularly important for old-time players, who likely garnered significant coverage that is not readily available today. Rlendog (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Additional) Comment All !votes only basing on WP:NBASE or completeness overlook that WP:N explicitely states that not meeting WP:NOT means deletion regardless of notability; in addition, while those who meet WP:NBASE are presumed to be notable, there is evidence to the contrary: Only routine coverage in broad statistics databases and newspapers, barely passing the criteria (one match), failing WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Completeness is basically WP:ILIKEIT. No evidence has been shown that players with brief appearances got significant coverage in the past(beyond WP:ROUTINE)--Müdigkeit (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not necessarily so. In fact, if we look at WP:NSPORTS, it says "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article..." So, regardless of what people are looking at (or "overlook[ing]" as you state), lets look at consensus here. This can be found at WP:WINNEROUTCOMES which shows that "professional athletes in major sports are always kept." So, we can discuss WP:GNG and topic specific guidelines all day, but until there is a consensus opposite of precedent, I find it hard to delete this one. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of your text doesn't support your position. WP:NOTAVOTE.

Using WP:WINNEROUTCOMES as keep reason (or worse, as base of consensus) is a good example of Circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. The article won't get it's keep from (other articles).--Müdigkeit (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Müdigkeit, all that you are doing by citing WP:this, WP:that and WP:theother is confirming what everybody already knows: the notability guidelines are inconsistent and in a mess that needs clearing up, but not here. I notice you have only done 1,700 edits in six years and I think you need much more experience of the site to understand how things tend to be done in practice. We have here a consensus of, currently, nine to one. The majority favour NBASE and the importance of that is support for SNGs within NSPORTS. This nomination is derived from the NSPORTS discussion about NCRIC. The best thing to do now is to close this as a snow keep, which is what it is going to be, and take the result back to NSPORTS. Can a closing admin please attend to this asap? Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A consensus of "nine against one"(or in other words, WP:MAJORITY, which is a reasoning that should be avoided) combined with the omission of my reasonings regarding WP:NOT which have not gained consensus against, and are solidly based on policy, then the fact that WP:NBASE is, as keeping rationale against WP:NOT blatant misrepresentation of WP:NOT and the top part of WP:N, and even of WP:NSPORTS itself... A keep, let alone a snow keep, would be not the correct action.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The site has always operated on a consensus basis. Quote all the WPs you like but it is consensus that ultimately counts. The WP guidelines and policies are contradictory and open to many permutations of interpretation so consensus is all we have in a case like this. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep claiming that we have a consensus to keep here. I looked at how many keep !votes I would discount. I don't see a consensus to keep. --Müdigkeit (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please list the ones you would discount and the ones you consider valid, with rationale for each? Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, however much any of us would like to be judge, jury and hangman in these discussions, an independent closer will put us all firmly in our places. Johnlp (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very true.

Jack | ^{talk page} 15:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the keep votes reference directly or indirectly at least the guideline of WP:NBASE. Just because their interpretation of the guideline differs from yours does not make them invalid. That is why we have the discussions. Nor is anything in this article a violation of WP:NOT (if nothing else, he achieved a level of fame and achievement by playing at the highest level of his sport). As discussed above, lack of easily accessible sources does not imply lack of sources, especially dealing with a subject from over 100 years ago. That is one of the reasons NBASE got a consensus in the first place. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at WP:OUTCOMES, we already have a precedent and can see how "judge, jury and hangman" have already decided in the past. It is what it is and prior outcomes state that prior discussions such as these have always been kept. While this is NOT a guideline, it does show the consensus of the encyclopedia as a whole and not just the few editors discussing on this thread.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2016 (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.