Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willy Adames

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. No prejudice towards redirection, but the outcome is definitely not delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Adames

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

Non-notable minor-leaguer. Coverage is all of the WP:ROUTINE sort, from either local sources or sites focused on MLB. Fails WP:NBASE. Redirect keeps getting reverted, so here we are. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty clearly passes WP:GNG to me at this point. Original editor that unredirected should have put at least some effort into the article, but they weren't wrong in un-redirecting. I cleaned that up a little bit.--Yankees10 21:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players page as the content of the page is minimal and it can easily be maintained at the other page until he makes the majors and becomes notable. Spanneraol (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Length of the article is irrelevant if the article passes GNG. There's a reason why the stub tags exist.--Yankees10 01:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't even out of AA yet. Thats what we have the minor league pages for. Spanneraol (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG doesn't care about what minor league level a player is playing at if the coverage is there. Shouldn't this be known by now?--Yankees10 01:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence he passes GNG.. coverage is routine. Spanneraol (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should have stated that at first then... more valid than your original reasoning.--Yankees10 01:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That actually was the rationale of the entire AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he was discussing Spanneraol's rationale, not your nomination rationale. Lepricavark(talk) 18:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- That's besides the point. Whenever discussing anyone's rationale, it should be in context of the initial nomination. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly shouldn't be deleted. Probably should be kept but I'm not sure. Otherwise redirected, not deleted. A WP:TROUT slap is in order for everyone involved in splitting, reverting, and nominating for deletion without any discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it's close, but the coverage appears to be sufficient to satisfy GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because anyone who played fantasy baseball during those seasons would relate to this article. --Oskinet (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that has nothing to do with an AfD discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(@Onel5969:)... If I am looking at a past season's roster for fantasy sports, I would want a handy reference to obtain that player's info. It is not uncommon for Wikipedians to be fantasy sports enthusiasts. --Oskinet (talk) 04:12, 27 March 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.