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 redirect to Sean Doolittle#Personal life. There was a suggestion for a limited merge, but nobody supported that, so I'm making this a plain redirect. The article history is still there, if anybody wants to salvage something from it. -- RoySmith(talk)16:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To his brother's page since it is a likely search term. He is not deserving of his own article unless he manages to play in a major league game.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I already !voted before the DRV, but the new sources do nothing to change my mind. Still not notable, but with regards to a comment TonyBallioni made on the DRV suggesting a redirect from one BLP to another to be inappropriate, WP:INVALIDBIO clearly says that redirects are appropriate from non-notable family members to notable ones. It is common practice to do, both in sports and non-sports subjects, for relatives who have received at least some coverage, however routine or trivial. In this case, Doolittle has received routine coverage for his games, and a few other trivial mentions that were cited in the DRV, which is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but does merit a redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because he's not notable, and INVALIDBIO says nothing of the sort. It lists examples of the children of very notable people who have very strong connections with them as redirects, and that it may occur, not should or must. That's it. The majority of the text is actually about how being related to someone doesn't make you notable. Redirecting a BLP to another BLP without a very strong reason is one of the most actively harmful things results that can possibly occur at an AfD: you make someone's name point to an article where they have zero control over the content. Redirects are inevitably forgotten about the instant an AfD closes, so you have the potential for a massive BLP violation by associating a person with the future negative actions of others for no reason, and the benefit it brings the encyclopedia is virtually zero. The practice may have been common at one point, but with one exception where I felt there was strong cause for a redirect, I've argued against it every time I've seen it and been successful in preventing it from occurring. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BLPs have no right to ownership over their own article: but they do have control over what is in the article by their actions. We report on what they do or what is done to them and their responses. We don't report on things that their relatives or family members do, generally, especially if it would somehow imply a negative action by the subject that they had no part in. If this guy's brother became the next Aaron Hernandez or Michael Vick during the dog-fighting era, having a redirect to him would have the potential to cause real harm to the reputation of a living person for next to no benefit to the reader if something negative doesn't happen.The BLP policy has as its fundamental precept do no harm and we choose the most conservative option necessary: in this case you have one brother who is not strongly associated with another brother. There isn't a real reason to have the redirect, but there is a strong reason not to: redirects are forgotten and have the potential to be harmful because the target can change based on the actions of another person.Re: AfDs, yes, there are some that close that way, but there are others that aren't: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Channing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Buchanan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurie Buchanan for BLPs to another BLP, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumana Islam is a BLP to a dead father. The practice is not consistent anymore, and in my view it should be discouraged except for rare cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Sununu. Redirecting a BLP to another BLP is normally a horrible idea, and I see no compelling reason why we should do it here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so two articles of non-notable subjects that were deleted instead of redirected to each other, and one article about someone who has no remote claim to notability other than being in a relationship with a notable person. I agree if it's just some random person in a relationship with a famous person, as in the case of Channing, it shouldn't be a redirect, but if the person has received at least some coverage outside of the relationship, however routine or trivial, consensus in most every case is to redirect. And Doolittle has received plenty of routine coverage related to his games (game reports, etc.) as well as the news coverage cited below, which I would consider trivial, but coverage nonetheless. The notability standard for a redirect is and should be lower than the notability standard to have an article, which should be obvious or we wouldn't have redirects. If it were an athlete's infant child, then except in very rare cases (Jorge Posada's son would probably qualify if he didn't have the same name, thus removing the need for a redirect) there would be no redirect since the child would have received next to no coverage. But Ryan's received at least some coverage, meaning in these cases, consensus is that a redirect is entirely appropriate. As for the Buchanans, that hardly makes your case, since they're both non-notable, making a redirect from one to the other impossible. Smartyllama (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about notability: its about the redirect posing zero aid to the reader and posing the potential for a major BLP violation if the future. There is literally no downside to deletion and every upside. There is no consensus that this should be done universally, and RfD has deleted such redirects in the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It provides plenty of aid to the reader - it takes them to a page, and specifically a location on the page, where Ryan is mentioned. The target page itself is clearly not about Ryan, and there would be no reason for readers to assume so, especially since it explicitly says Ryan is Sean's brother, and no reasonable person would think he's his own brother, even if they didn't look at the title or notice the fact that he's obviously not the main subject there. Minor league baseball players get enough attention that it is likely a significant number of people have heard of him independent of his brother. That's not enough for his own article, but prior history, including the just-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinem Doğu, suggest it's enough for a redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8], plus three articles from newsbank.com, "Seneca's Doolittle opts for UNC-Wilmington" (Burlington County Times - May 19, 2006), "Doolittle enjoying Cup experience" (Burlington County Times - June 7, 2005), and "All-County 2006 Baseball Player of the Year" (Burlington County Times - June 23, 2006). So there is about 7 articles of significant coverage. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. The creator is not blocked, and even if he were, others have contributed to this article, meaning G5 would not apply anyway. I suggest you strike this comment. Smartyllama (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. The sources listed above are local and / or routine coverage, such as by Burlington County Times. A redirect to a family member would not be appropriate; this could be done for a spouse of a celebrity, but this is not the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I just had the same argument with Tony over at WT:CCSI#Tweaks, so anyone interested can read my thoughts there. Basically, I agree that some information is better than none and the goal should be to provide readers this information at some location. The "do no harm" idea was rejected when crafting WP:BLP precisely because it forces us to make WP:NPOV-related decisions, i.e. when is it not "harmful" to redirect the article. The argument that a redirect make[s] someone's name point to an article where they have zero control over the content does not work because no subject has any control over content written about them, no matter where the content is (cf. WP:BIOSELF, WP:AUTOPROB). And even if they did, why should they have less control at the redirect's target than they had at the article? WP:BLP explicitly states that it applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article [...] (emphasis added). And if Ryan Dolittle is covered in a short sentence or two at Sean Doolittle, the policy that applies is the same. And no matter what the brother might do later, him being Ryan's brother will not change and that is already covered in plenty of reliable sources. Regards SoWhy06:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are using "do no harm" differently than most people are, and that essay about why it was rejected actually conforms with my usage here. Deleting this article actually would not prevent the reader from gaining any information: it would still be in the personal life section of the article. The difference is that his name wouldn't automatically send you to an article about an entirely different person. That is actually very much in line with our NPOV policy. And yes, BLPs do have some control about what is written about them: they choose how they act. They don't get any control over how it is reported, but they do have control over their own actions. Pretending otherwise simply to avoid deletion is harmful to the project.Regarding the argument that BLP policy applies to all articles: yes, that is certainly true. The distinction is that what is allowable under the BLP policy in one article is COATRACK material in another and expressly disallowed. These redirects that have zero benefit to the reader function in a similar manner. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 30 August 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.