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. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Schmidt[edit]

Nick Schmidt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Subjects are baseball players who have failed to achieve sufficient notability. Per precedent, ballplayers are not considered notable until they have reached the Major Leagues. Caknuck 00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Casey Weathers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jarrod Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andrew Brackman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Matthew LaPorta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keep' - Matt LaPorta. I second that. He is linked to on the Florida Gators page as a notable alumni for being an All-American twice during his time in Gainesville. WTStoffs 02:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure that most, if not all of those are players who jumped from HS to the pros. Collegic level (especially D1) accomplishments give notability to a player Corpx 05:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precedence has no place here, as we are not trying to establish rules for future events. the_undertow talk 10:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To the contrary, AFD outcomes express the true state of affairs with respect to what is notable, and have frequently been a basis for labelling something as a notability guideline. Edison 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I don't agree. If X was deleted, then so should Y? That's precedent, and is not a valid argument. However, if you are saying that outcomes from previous AFDs have been used to set guidelines, that's a different idea. the_undertow talk 22:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles should remain because of their achievements at the college level, and now what they've done (or doing) at the minors. Corpx 15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drawing the line at first round picks is not a very good idea. The baseball draft is different than NBA or NFL in that the best players aren't necessarily taken first. Teams will draft based on signability, their class (juniors have more leverage than seniors because they can return to school), etc. I don't have a problem with deleting players like Parker that haven't played college baseball, but an ad-hoc approach needs to be taken to ensure that notable players that aren't first round picks are still included. Wpride33 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that'd be up to the closing person or the nominator. I do think that Jarrod Parker should be deleted. Corpx 16:31, 14 July 2007 (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.