Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Lahey
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 no consensus. Courcelles 04:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Lahey
- Tim Lahey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable minor league baseball pitcher currently not with any affiliated minor league team. He last pitched in affiliated baseball in 2010. Statistically, he did nothing of note to merit an article. References are lacking. Alex (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources; it's just that no one has taken the time to put them into the article. I'll see what I can do. I'm just happy I happened upon this before it was actually deleted. — KV5 • Talk • 14:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that I've gotten this to the point where the AfD can be closed as Keep, as there are now reliable sources proving notability, and there are a plethora more here in a Google News search covering from the beginning of his college career to the present day. — KV5 • Talk • 01:11, 6 September 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, Courcelles 23:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per reliable sources that verify notability of the topic [1], [2] and [3]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I could've sworn this guy did have at least 1 MLB appearance. Based on KV5's work, I say this just barely meets GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Thanks to KV5's effort to rescue. While this article is sourced, I am not seeing the WP:IMPACT this person has aside from some statistics that prove he played. I consider him a WP:Run-of-the-mill player, although he has lasted in the minor leagues for quite a few years. WP:GNG "establishes a presumption, not a guarantee" for inclusion, and "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." —Bagumba (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So because I did the hard work to make this a verified and reliably sourced article, you're opposing keeping it? Even when additional sources beyond what's already in the article have been provided? — KV5 • Talk • 23:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not "because" of your hard work, "in spite of" your hard work :-( —Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Understandable. I'll just make the comment that WP:ROTM and WP:IMPACT are essays, not guidelines, and that I still think these sources, and the additional ones available, confirm notability due to the basic notability criteria for people: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The sources provided are independent of each other and the subject, and there are now quite a few, as compared to none before. If I have to, I will try to devote some more time to adding additional sources, but I don't have a lot of free time. There are seven non-statistical sources independent of the subject and two interviews with the player used as supplements in addition to Baseball-Reference.com. — KV5 • Talk • 00:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are essays, but Wikipedia's five pillars says Wikipedia does not have firm rules. In any event, we all interpret in good faith and consensus will rule in the end.—Bagumba (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Understandable. I'll just make the comment that WP:ROTM and WP:IMPACT are essays, not guidelines, and that I still think these sources, and the additional ones available, confirm notability due to the basic notability criteria for people: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The sources provided are independent of each other and the subject, and there are now quite a few, as compared to none before. If I have to, I will try to devote some more time to adding additional sources, but I don't have a lot of free time. There are seven non-statistical sources independent of the subject and two interviews with the player used as supplements in addition to Baseball-Reference.com. — KV5 • Talk • 00:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not "because" of your hard work, "in spite of" your hard work :-( —Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So because I did the hard work to make this a verified and reliably sourced article, you're opposing keeping it? Even when additional sources beyond what's already in the article have been provided? — KV5 • Talk • 23:35, 12 September 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.