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. My own opinion might be to delete, but I see the consensus is otherwise DGG (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Tigers minor league players[edit]

AfDs for this article:

For all intents and purposes, this and every other "X minor league players" is really nothing but a list of redlinked names, who will remain redlinked until they make a major league appearance. The general consensus for minor league ballplayers, especially those below AA level, is that they are not notable enough to warrant inclusion. They are professional per WP:ATHLETE only in the most technical sense. Common sense says they are not professional enough for inclusion. Consider this a blanket nomination for every MLB team's minor leaguer list. DarkAudit (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Individual players on a list don't need to be notable themselves. Why is a list of redlinked names a problem? If this was regarding individual player articles, then my opinion may be much different. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply They're not notable enough on they're own. Why do we need an entire list of non-notables? A guy who never makes beyond AA ball will never get an article. That redlink will always be a redlink. Isn't it a general rule to avoid lists of redlinked names? DarkAudit (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then remove the wikilinks! There are plenty of lists out there that don't link to every single item. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After thinking about it, the minor league players themselves are not notable (for the most part), but the subject of Minor League Baseball Players in the Detroit Tigers Organization is notable. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Then we should have one for the Yankees, Orioles, Rays, Dodgers, Giants, Twins, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Padres, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Royals, Tigers, Indians, White Sox, Athletics, Angels, Rangers, Mariners, Braves, Reds, Cubs, Brewers, Mets, Marlins, Nationals, Cardinals, Phillies, Astros, and Pirates. Just having one for a bunch of non-notable players except for the AAAers in the Tigers organization is nonsense.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whoops didn't realize there were for all the other teams, so then maybe delete all.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, this is for all of them, not just the Tigers. A Yankee prospect in A ball isn't notable enough, either. DarkAudit (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This information is likely to change much more frequently than editors will realistically keep up with it, given the transitive nature of minor league baseball. These pages are not particularly encyclopedic and likely to reflect poorly on the overall accuracy of Wikipedia. CopaceticThought (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Players don't change between minor league organizations that often...probably just as often as Major League players do. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but they do move up and down within an organization. CopaceticThought (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Right, but I don't think that's the issue here, especially when there are only five or six players listed on each article. If you're referring to the full rosters, those are just transcluded templates. They're kept pretty up-to-date themselves at least the Tigers rosters are. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think a list of all players within the organization (major and minor) would be more maintainable as you're not moving as much around amongst lists unless, obviously, trades occur, players are released, or free agents sign with a new team. With that being said, I am leaning towards delete in their current states. There has to be a better way to manage lists of MLB players than this method, no offense. MuZemike 20:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of minor league players within a Major League organization is certainly notable. The rosters have been maintained and kept up to date, that is not a problem. These pages allow an easy way to see all the players within a baseball organization in an easy location. This is both useful and notable. The baseball project is actively maintaining these pages, they should definitely be kept. Spanneraol (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. To oversimplify, no more appropriate than "list of cities where it rained yesterday." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a completely ridiculous comment. The farm system of a major league baseball team is far more notable than a list of cities where it rained... Not only are there plenty of reliable sources for this information, there are also plenty of people who actively seek out this information and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information for people who are seeking it. Spanneraol (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe [WP:CIVIL]]. I said my comment was oversimplified. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "current-status-of" resource. We don't have an article "Today's NBC TV schedule, even though people look things like that up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting my comment because it appears that the Baseball WikiProject can sufficiently handle upkeep. CopaceticThought (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't really have a problem with these. The players themselves may not merit individual articles, but the rosters are good information to have. There are plenty of people who want to keep track of up-and-coming players. The rosters for these teams are usually listed in newspapers when they are unveiled, which shows that there is interest in this level of detail. If a player doesn't seem notable, just remove the brackets around his name. Maintenance shouldn't be a problem, unless the baseball editors suddenly go on strike. Zagalejo^^^ 21:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spanneraol. If there's a better way to discuss the state of minor league organizations I'm all ears. As an aside why do the Tigers keep getting singled out? Is the nominator a Cleveland fan? Mackensen (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was my fault. I mentioned this article in another AFD and here we are :( — X96lee15 (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing personal, just business Don't kick yourself. The Tigers just got pulled into the line of fire first. They're all tagged now. DarkAudit (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I feel the purpose of these articles will just be a repository for obviously non-notable people until they make the majors. Finding places to put non-notables is exactly what wikipedia shouldn't be doing. Wizardman 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the only thing on these pages is the rosters it makes them worthwhile. This is the only place you can see all the rosters of one organization on the same page. The only alternative would be to put them on the pages of the Major League team, and that just makes those pages longer. Spanneraol (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The teams within the farm system are notable, and this is preferable to individual articles about each minor league team's rosters. So there are red-link names on there? Big frickin' deal. There is no rule that all of the persons mentioned on a page have to have their own page. While I think most of us would fight any attempt by someone to turn all of the red-links in to blue links in order to satisfy someone's notions about notability, it does not matter to me whether the "non-notable" players have their names displayed in black or r.e.d. I agree that there are plenty of Wikipedians who would maintain this type of rise-and-fall of players. Worthy good-faith attempt to throw this one out, but it looks like the closing umpire is going to have to call this one "safe at second base". Mandsford (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There are plenty of other places outside Wikipedia for those interested in such things to keep track of these guys. Those people already go there. Wikipedia is for after they've made a name for themselves. The players on these lists have not, and a good many of them never will. DarkAudit (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles aren't really about the players but about the farm system of the major league team, which is a notable subject. Spanneraol (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which could easily be merged into a short "farm system" section of the respective teams. These articles are no more than lists of players who for the most part will never have an individual article. DarkAudit (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Minor league baseball players have always been in the gray area of Wikipedia notability guidelines. On the one hand, their names and accounts of their games appear in reliable sources and they are paid for playing, making them "professional athletes." On the other hand, baseball's minor leagues are primarily developmental in nature; their main objective is to take a large group of prospects and develop a small percentage of them to be capable of playing at the major league level. Consequently, many minor league baseball players are little known outside of their small circle of fans, generally located in the smaller cities and towns where they play. Many of them have very short and non-memorable careers, leading to WP:BLP1E concerns. There have been many AfD fights over biographies of minor league players, and despite several attempts (for example, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines) we've never developed a workable consensus about which minor league players merit articles. In this context, I think these lists of minor league players have been an excellent move toward compromise. On the one hand, they recognize that there is encyclopedic interest in minor league players and coverage is available from reliable sources. On the other hand, they also recognize that permanent biographies are not needed for most players who don't go on to reach the major leagues or achieve other notable career distinctions. The player's name remains on the list while he's playing for the organization, and then the name is dropped. Because discussion of the players on these lists is limited to their role as ballplayers, it avoids the WP:BLP concerns that afflict stand-alone articles. Merging of stand-alone biographies to these lists has been a consensus solution in a number of AfD discussions (for example, see discussions of Chris Parmelee, Brett Cecil, and Matthew Mangini). I think these lists are compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines for stand-alone lists. (By the way, I agree that the wikilinks should be removed for the redlinked names.) BRMo (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - um, no. jj137 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - BRMo said it perfectly. Articles such as these seem to be the best compromise between haveing stand-alone player articles and not providing any information about these players at all. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - per BRMo, Zagalejo and others. Rlendog (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - They are professional players.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I am a professional (my occupation) but that doesn't make me notable for a Wikipedia article. CopaceticThought (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if an article was written about your place of work, there is no reason why the mere mention of your name within that article whould be prohibited-- and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are notable enough to merit your own separate page. Wikipedia is not censored, and so long as the subject of the article is notable enough for its own page, the content is up to all of us. Mandsford (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no problem with a redlinked name, and would prefer that to removing wikilink, for the simple reason that the second an article is written, it becomes blue-linked. There is no reason to remember to go back and re-link it. The only potential problem is that for every one major league player, there are about 11 minor league players, and so the list will eventually become huge, assuming nobody will be deleted from the list and people will only be added. My initial thought was to keep, but I'm now thinking delete all as too unwieldy to maintain.Eauhomme (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has already been established that the Baseball WikiProject is updating and maintaining to a suitable standard, so I'm not sure your delete is totally justified. Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All: Is this a joke? I have not read one good argument for a delete. Each article serves a major purpose: i.e. a comprehensive guide to each teams minor league players. It is convienent for those who want to see an organizations players, managers, and coaches all at once (opposed to navigating through 6+ minor league articles per team to find that same info). Nick22aku (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1. A lot of the discussion is about redlinks. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is all about links. The "What links here" function is a major tool to an article (either a red- or blue-linked one). Since this tool operates the same regardless if a link is red or blue, it is especially useful with redlink articles because it provides an inventory of the frequency of that article within other articles. This can help determine if it is time for a redlinked article to be created or not.

2. If this deletion discussion is once agaaaain about the (non)notability of minor league players, then the individual roster templates should be nominated for deletion. This is not the forum for that - this is something different. Nick22aku (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- No joke As said before, the lists of each club's farm system teams can easily be rolled into the parent club's article. Leaving us once again with a list of names that would not pass muster in any other article. They wouldn't be acceptable for inclusion in calendar year articles. They wouldn't be acceptable to list as alumni from their high schools or colleges. What makes them any more acceptable here? DarkAudit (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Adding these rosters to the Major League club would make those already lengthy articles even longer. These guys play before thousands of fans at minor league parks, they are more notable than high school alumni.Spanneraol (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply You misunderstand. I meant listing the minor league teams sans rosters. And I repeat. The same guys are not worthy of individual articles, and adding their names to their high school or college alumni lists would be immediately reverted. Same goes for adding their birthdays to the date and year articles. Near-instant reversion as not notable. Put these names anywhere in Wikipedia but here, and they'll be reverted. It's a double standard. DarkAudit (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Most of the listed players are not notable enough for standalone articles but many are. And there is no problem with the ones without an article being included in these lists, since the rosters they are included in are notable. Rlendog (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Maintained properly, I believe the creation of these pages provides good information on the top prospects in each organizations minor league affiliates. While the players themselves may not be notable enough to merit a page, the group as a whole does. Hardnfast (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that the articles can maintained properly, and is a quick and easy tool to located information. Sure the players are not notable when looked at individually, but the teams are notable, in fact most minor league teams have pages. If you are going to have minor league team articles, makes sense to include the players in some fashion. With most players likely to never get above redlink, a team's player template is not realistic.Neonblak ^talk - 13:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment "They are professional per WP:ATHLETE only in the most technical sense. Common sense says they are not professional enough for inclusion." is a patently ridiculous statement by the nominator. You are confusing your opinion of whether they are notable enough with being professional enough. Common sense actually says the opposite of what you state: All of these players earn a living playing baseball full time. That is professional, no matter how you wish to rationalize the difference between the major and minor leagues. Reso lute 00:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can they be paid but not professional (unless they are Semi-professional)? Also, please do not remove red links; they may not look good but they help to build our encyclopedia. Even our featured articles and featured lists have them; there is no good reason to delink them (unless the subjects are truly and always will non-notable). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose a merge into something along the lines of List of minor league players or whatever. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These should be deleted and indivdual pages made for the players. They are obviously notable per WP:ATHLETE since they are all professional and are all discussed in third party sources. Kinston eagle (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the consensus from the baseball project is that minor leaguers, and especially deep-minors minor leaguers, are not notable, in spite of the professional provision of WP:ATHLETE. DarkAudit (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. I don't know if the players, especially the minor minor leaguers would merit pages on their own however as a unit they are notable. In order that we don't have so many unnecessary pages that will face deletion themselves, we should maintain all of these pages. Valley2city^‽ 18:27, 24 March 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.