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. The overall discussion herein has sufficiently countered the nomination with guideline-based rationales that the subject meets WP:GNG. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Widlansky

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Robbie Widlansky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are a lot of words in this article, but 95% of them amount to fluff and the rest don't do much to establish notability. He plays for the Somerset Patriots - independent minor league team, not major league, so that fails WP:BASE/N. He won a college batting title - of note, but not notable enough to merit an article. Set a school a record for batting average, same. Was named a college conference player of the year, same. Perhaps the most notable thing he ever accomplished in his career is he was named an All-American, but even that in itself isn't entirely notable nor does it establish 'inherent notability' as far as I know.

Let's keep going: He was an All-Star in the low- and mid- level minor leagues? Not notable. He was a low-level player of the week a handful of times? Not notable. He was a low-level minor league player of the month once? Not notable. He played in the Australian Baseball League? That would have been notable two years ago, but it fails WP:BASE/N now. He played for a qualifying team for the WBC? Well, he didn't actually play in the WBC, so that's not notable (and please don't argue that playing in a qualifying round is somehow equivalent to actually playing in the real tournament - we don't say a guy played in the World Series when all he did was reach the 'qualifying rounds' of the Division and Championship Series').

He reached Triple-A twice? So did lots of guys without articles. He won some high school accolades? Lots of people win those. Not notable. Wow, the more I read the article, the more I see someone was REALLY desperate to glean notability from and for an otherwise not notable person. He broke a minor league team's record for RBI in a month...that's mentioned in the article...and that barely qualifies as trivia, let alone notability. He was named MVP among a select group of players by some publication no one has ever heard of? Not notable. Just as the article is a lot of words but no substance, the same goes with the list of references. A lot of links but nothing too meaningful. It's all WP:ROUTINE. I really can't believe this article has survived three rounds of AfDs. Lots of words != notability, nor does listing every little trivial thing someone has accomplished. Alex (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is still significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and the article is therefore presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article per wp:GNG ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."). So since GNG is met, WP:BASE/N is irrelevant; it need not even be considered . Beyond that, the starkest problem w/the nomination is that it focuses on each factor independently, rather than all together. And beyond meeting GNG, the topic of the article won the Sun Belt Conference batting title, set a school-record at his university for batting average, was Player of the Year in his Conference, was an All American, set the Aberdeen IronBirds team record for RBIs in a single month, was a NY Penn League All Star, was a mid-season Eastern League All Star, won the Carolina League batting title, played for a national team (Israel; in the World Baseball Classic qualifying round, which is run by the World Baseball Classic), also played in the Australian Baseball League ... all of which were the reason he received significant coverage in many independent reliable sources in more than one country, some being articles devoted entirely to him or largely to him, satisfying GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that's a flaw in the guidelines. No one has been able to identify any signs of actual nobility -- he hasn't done anything meaningful -- just that his name has been mentioned a lot. He's notable by technicality, not by actuality. Alex (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is core to wikipedia's notability rule. Wikipedia covers a topic if the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It's not a flaw. It's a core wikipedia notability concept. You are confusing "Wikipedia notability" with "fame." As Wikipedia:Notability states: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity...." And Wikipedia:Notability's first-mentioned test for notability? GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to anything specific about Widlansky's career that is notable, outside the number of links he appears in? Alex (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in GNG does it say that any event in a person's life makes them notable. That's for notability guidelines, like NSPORTS. GNG is about coverage: if a person has it, then they're notable. If they don't, they don't. It's up to us to form consensus on whether or not the subject has enough coverage to merit an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex - you don't seem to be reading the comments here and the diffs supplied. Please consider the following, as well. From the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (emphasis supplied).

Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?

A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline.....

and ...

Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards? A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.

Epeefleche (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"There isn't a single thing in the article that's actually notable from a Wikipedia standpoint..." Except significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, which is our gold standard for notability, regardless of one's views of a subject's baseball accomplishments. Rlendog (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Except significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, which is our gold standard for notability" - is it really? Is it not just the minimum standard, the assumption of notability, an assumption which prevents automatic deletion but which is required to be tested against other standards and which does not carry with it the assumption of automatic keep. But the guidance is vague on what assumption of notability actually means. It would save a lot of time in AfD discussions if the guidance were clarified. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." What other standards are you suggesting need to be tested against once a subject meets this notabiity standard? That is not to sayd that there couldn't be reasons a subject that meets the notability presumption should be deleted or merged (e.g., WP:COATRACK), but that would rarely if ever be a case of not being "actually notable from a Wikipedia standpoint." Rlendog (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2014 (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.
More