Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Thatch

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Thatch

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

Not a particularly notable individual. His professional baseball career lasted seven games, his acting career, while existent, does not strike one as "article worthy" and the fact that he was traded for beer, though it is a good factoid, does not in itself merit an article. Alex (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A working actor[1] and former baseball player. If one goes through the news[2] and book[3] results covering this individual for over several years, we may well find the sources required to expand and properly flesh out a decent BLP for this individual's overall career, and so perhaps determine a keep per WP:GNG, even if weak on some SNGs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One season in the independent leagues does not make his baseball career notable and his acting career seems to consist of bit parts on television shows.. not notable there either. Spanneraol (talk) 22:22, 29 January 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.