Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel Pinango

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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 00:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Pinango

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball pitcher. Statistically, he had no major accomplishments that would merit an article. He played in the LMB, but that league's notability is currently in limbo. Since it is considered a minor league by bother Major League Baseball and Mexico, I too believe it is just another minor league. Alex (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per playing in the Mexican Baseball League, the top professional league in Mexico, as per WP:ATHLETE. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rlendog again. I know there are some who want WP:BASEBALL/N rewritten, but at the moment it still includes "top-level national league" as part of the criteria (as I think it should). Qrsdogg (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rlendog and Qrsdogg. The LMB's status isn't in "limbo", in spite of the efforts of a few editors to misinterpret the guideline as written. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting perspective on that conversation. I see a guideline that says "top-level" and see a league that is subservient to MLB and figure that means its not top level. Pretty straightforward interpretation. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems like it's more than a "few editors." Alex (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - MLB teams don't have affiliations with LMB clubs, don't provide players to fill the rosters of LMB clubs, and don't have any voice in transactions made by LMB clubs. LMB clubs operate with complete autonomy. A LMB club could release all its players and burn down its home stadium tomorrow, and nobody in MLB would have any grounds for objection. To describe that state of affairs as "subservience" is certainly an interesting perspective... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not so much, when you consider the Mexican League is considered to be on par with the IL and PCL. Just because they're independent doesn't mean they're top level. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's really a shame there weren't more editors contributing to the recent discussion on the LMB. I consider the matter of notability vis-a-vis playing in the LMB to still be an open question, and therefore shall abstain from further !voting on such subjects until that changes, and would further suggest a moratorium on nominations of this nature until consensus is reached. -Dewelar (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an open question in the sense that any policies/guidelines can be changed if a consensus to change them emerges. No such consensus emerged from the most recent discussion of LMB notability, and since the discussion is seems pretty dead at this point, the existing standard (i.e. players for LMB clubs are inherently notable) remains in place in the absence of further developments. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The open question is whether the majority of currently active editors understands that the intention of the guideline is as you say, since (whether you are willing to admit it or not) it lacks clarity as written. Until the guideline is clarified, there cannot even be a real discussion on the matter. -Dewelar (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the most recent discussion, if people would like to re-word it in a way that preserves the meaning toward which it was written, I have no problem with that. There did not, however, seem to be much interest in doing so by the other parties in the discussion, so it didn't happen. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As near as I can tell, the only real change that needed to be made was the removal of the word "major", but that didn't seem to have consensus support, including from you. That's why I didn't change it. -Dewelar (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If any admin looks at this discussion and believes it's snowing, he or she should be suspended immediately on the grounds of gross incompetence. -Dewelar (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2011 (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.