364:) 21:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordingly
470:
predictable, they will redefine significant coverage in such a way as to keep out whatever articles they on some intuitive basis want to keep out. There are already cases where we have in effect added "non-local" to the definition of what counts. Wouldn't it be better to go by some fixed standard, easy to determine and hard to dispute once it is settled? My feeling is to compromise at some number of AA or AAA level games or seasons.
405:
team scouts. WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what
Knowledge (XXG) was meant to be in the first place! I
352:
team scouts. WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what
Knowledge (XXG) was meant to be in the first place! I
682:
assumed it was a Padres fan site, but it also seems to have some affiliation with Fox (Which doesn't necessarily make it a reliable source. Not a slam on Fox, just saying some news organizations have discovered that popular content drives advertising revenue.) Any education on this would be appreciated.--
703:
Scout.com is, IMO, reliable. They get credentials from teams to cover events, they conduct interviews and other acts of journalism, they have editorial oversight, etc. The branding for the site says MadFriars because Scout.com likes to create sub-sites for each team they cover, for branding purposes.
423:
Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The
487:
I personally would love to have some standard. Unfortunately, consensus has been hard to come by. The last several times it was worked on, almost everyone agreed that a single MLB game works, and almost no one argued for rookie league. But that area in between has always been pretty darned gray. (My
442:
professional athlete" as per WP:ATHLETE if they're in the minor leagues. I fail to see how it matters that a site has "stadium info" when we're talking about the players, and when it comes to them it lists only stats. If a scout is using
Knowledge (XXG) to help them with their job, they're in pretty
404:
Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with
Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or
351:
Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with
Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or
469:
i suspect that when there is full coverage of local newspapers in GNews/GBooks, a project that is has begun, we will find articles in their home towns or where they have played. These teams are major fixtures in many smaller cities. The next recourse of those who want to go by formal sourcing is
681:
Good catch on the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article. I had seen the SI article and discounted it because it was two paragraphs discussing and injury. But I do have a question on the Scout.com article -- it seems to me to be a repost of a MadFriars.com article. Is MadFriars a reliable source? I had
742:
The SI article includes a (dead) internal link to a full article about
Hamilton's injury in the Beaver County Times (a satellite paper owned by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review conglomerate), which includes considerably more detail about the situation. Unfortunately, the BCT puts all their content
572:
The consensus was to not use an x-number-of-games standard for particular levels of minor league play, but rather to qualify minor leagule players either for specific milestone accomplishments (league awards, records, etc.) or under general notability guidelines. And there WAS a consensus - the
525:
reach a consensus. We couldn't get agreement on any standards based on level of play, awards, or the like. But then we started a discussion of sourcing, and there was agreement that to be considered notable an article needs to have good sources—more than just statistics or a trivial or passing
743:
behind a pay wall after about a week or so, and their archive search sucks, so you'd probably need a paper copy at this point (or microfiche, or something along those lines). The injury was a big scandal at the time, since it resulted in some measure of permanent disability for
Hamilton. -
530:) and the revised guidelines were later posted on the WikiProject page. They then disappeared with a page redesign. Of course, any "consensus" is only relative to the editors who took part in the discussion and isn't permanent, so it may be time to re-open the discussion.
546:
I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. When I said consensus was hard to come by, I was referring to "playing at xx level in the minors equals notability". (Jeez, can't you read my mind? *grin*) IIRC, everyone was in agreement that if there were enough
655:
I'm not taking a keep/delete position here, but if someone wanted to work on the article, there are plenty of good sources on Mr. Hamilton available. Not brief or statistical mentions, but actual articles:
128:
518:
233:
Trusting nominators good faith search. There is broad interpretation among
Knowledge (XXG) editors of what constitutes "fully professional" for baseball players, I interpret as having
583:
191:
136:
237:
in one of the major leagues outlined in the proposed (but not fully adopted) baseball notability guidelines, and that minor league players are not notable unless there has been
120:
162:
787:
As pennance, I've added the Post-Gazette ref and searched through madfriars to find a ref for an awardd and an all-star game appearance, which have also been added.--
527:
661:
87:
82:
91:
379:
A reliable source should be "significant coverage" in prose, otherwise every A, AA, AAA, college, and high school player in the country could have an article.
657:
74:
637:- Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by
604:
668:, etc. People who don't follow baseball don't really appreciate the enormous volume of media coverage that even low-minors baseball receives. -
608:
586:
does not sound like what you (and
Kinston eagle in another AfD) have mentioned being the compromise, and that's all I could find. Thanks!--
488:
suggestion was AAA is fully professional, as that guaranteed salary is better than working at McDonald's full time here in California).--
17:
78:
822:
799:
778:
747:
733:
708:
694:
672:
665:
650:
615:
598:
577:
567:
539:
500:
481:
458:
433:
418:
394:
373:
341:
324:
303:
283:
258:
209:
180:
151:
56:
135:. Does several seasons at single-A and 20 games at AA mean he's competed at a "fully professional level"? (The proposed
837:
603:
Sorry. I looked around for a while, but I can't find it. We've talked about this a lot - at the page you mentioned, at
36:
70:
62:
611:... after a while, they all start to blend together. I guess we can always put it up for discussion again (*sigh*). -
424:
stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordingly
313:
per added sources. Clearly some are better at finding references than I. Recommend a withdrawal, Fabrictramp. -
573:
guideline was listed as such on the project's front page, until it was inexplicably removed during a redesign. -
836:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
744:
705:
669:
612:
574:
319:
298:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
814:
429:
414:
369:
361:
241:
coverage of them in reliable, independent sources (not just statistic pages), in which case they would pass
451:
387:
276:
131:. Good faith gnews/gsearch not turning up more than blogs, stat pages, and passing mentions. That leaves
794:
728:
689:
593:
562:
495:
425:
410:
365:
357:
336:
204:
175:
146:
811:
Recommend withdrawal, as recent additions have helped appease original nomination's reasoning. Cheers,
769:
is there too as shown by User:Hit bull, win steak. It just needs to be implemented into the article.
254:
228:
762:
246:
132:
315:
294:
223:
Recent additions to the article indicate the subject passes the general notability guidelines. --
774:
528:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 7#Minor league notability - draft now available
329:
Fine with me, but we've still got a couple of delete !votes, so not eligible to be closed yet.--
446:
382:
271:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
788:
722:
683:
587:
556:
489:
330:
198:
169:
140:
552:
517:
Actually, the last time we discussed the WikiProject's notability guidelines in depth (see
242:
250:
224:
548:
646:
535:
766:
638:
526:
reference in a news article. That consensus was reported back to the Wikiproject (see
770:
477:
50:
108:
642:
531:
582:
But I still can't find a link to it. Any chance you can point me to one?
472:
139:
says no, but while this did have much consensus, it is just a draft.)
129:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jose Diaz (baseball player)
830:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
443:
bad shape; and I don't see how that applies to this discussion.
519:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines
584:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines
438:
Being under contract with a pro team does not make one a "
409:
reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.
356:
reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.
137:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines
721:, and kudos to Hit bull, win steak for a job well done.--
717:
Great, I'll add this to my mental list of okay sources.
115:
104:
100:
96:
192:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
840:). No further edits should be made to this page.
555:for a non-athlete that the player was notable.--
163:list of Baseball-related deletion discussions
8:
662:Scout.com (a content partner of FOX Sports)
605:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (athletes)
186:
157:
609:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (sports)
190:: This debate has been included in the
161:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
761:. He meets the requirements set at
719:Change me over to the keep category
268:per nom, does not meet WP:ATHLETE.
24:
243:the general notability guidelines
765:and the verifibility needed for
1:
245:and would not have to pass
231:) 15:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
71:Clayton Hamilton (baseball)
63:Clayton Hamilton (baseball)
857:
823:21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
800:14:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
779:06:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
748:13:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
734:14:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
709:13:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
695:21:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
673:13:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
651:03:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
616:13:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
599:21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
578:13:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
568:17:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
540:17:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
501:15:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
482:00:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
459:00:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
434:21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
419:21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
395:21:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
374:21:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
342:16:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
325:16:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
304:19:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
284:19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
259:16:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
210:16:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
181:16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
152:16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
57:07:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
833:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
658:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
745:Hit bull, win steak
706:Hit bull, win steak
670:Hit bull, win steak
613:Hit bull, win steak
575:Hit bull, win steak
666:Sports Illustrated
44:The result was
292:per all above. -
212:
195:
183:
166:
848:
835:
817:
797:
791:
731:
725:
692:
686:
596:
590:
565:
559:
498:
492:
457:
454:
449:
393:
390:
385:
339:
333:
323:
302:
282:
279:
274:
207:
201:
196:
178:
172:
167:
149:
143:
127:Unbundling from
118:
112:
94:
53:
34:
856:
855:
851:
850:
849:
847:
846:
845:
844:
838:deletion review
831:
815:
795:
789:
729:
723:
690:
684:
594:
588:
563:
557:
496:
490:
452:
447:
444:
388:
383:
380:
337:
331:
322:
316:CobaltBlueTony™
314:
301:
295:CobaltBlueTony™
293:
277:
272:
269:
205:
199:
176:
170:
147:
141:
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
854:
852:
843:
842:
826:
825:
805:
804:
803:
802:
782:
781:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
739:
738:
737:
736:
712:
711:
698:
697:
676:
675:
653:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
543:
542:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
464:
463:
462:
461:
421:
400:
398:
397:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
318:
297:
286:
263:
214:
213:
184:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
853:
841:
839:
834:
828:
827:
824:
821:
820:
818:
810:
807:
806:
801:
798:
792:
786:
785:
784:
783:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
757:
756:
749:
746:
741:
740:
735:
732:
726:
720:
716:
715:
714:
713:
710:
707:
702:
701:
700:
699:
696:
693:
687:
680:
679:
678:
677:
674:
671:
667:
663:
659:
654:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
633:
632:
617:
614:
610:
606:
602:
601:
600:
597:
591:
585:
581:
580:
579:
576:
571:
570:
569:
566:
560:
554:
550:
545:
544:
541:
537:
533:
529:
524:
521:) I think we
520:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
502:
499:
493:
486:
485:
483:
479:
475:
474:
468:
467:
466:
465:
460:
456:
455:
450:
441:
437:
436:
435:
431:
427:
426:Gjr rodriguez
422:
420:
416:
412:
411:Gjr rodriguez
408:
403:
402:
401:
396:
392:
391:
386:
378:
377:
376:
375:
371:
367:
366:Gjr rodriguez
363:
359:
358:Gjr rodriguez
355:
343:
340:
334:
328:
327:
326:
321:
317:
312:
308:
307:
306:
305:
300:
296:
291:
287:
285:
281:
280:
275:
267:
264:
262:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
230:
226:
222:
221:
216:
215:
211:
208:
202:
193:
189:
185:
182:
179:
173:
164:
160:
156:
155:
154:
153:
150:
144:
138:
134:
130:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
832:
829:
813:
812:
808:
758:
718:
634:
551:to have met
522:
471:
445:
439:
406:
399:
381:
353:
350:
310:
289:
288:
270:
265:
238:
234:
232:
219:
217:
187:
158:
126:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
790:Fabrictramp
724:Fabrictramp
685:Fabrictramp
589:Fabrictramp
558:Fabrictramp
491:Fabrictramp
332:Fabrictramp
239:significant
200:Fabrictramp
171:Fabrictramp
142:Fabrictramp
796:talk to me
763:WP:ATHLETE
730:talk to me
691:talk to me
595:talk to me
564:talk to me
497:talk to me
338:talk to me
309:Change to
251:kelapstick
247:WP:ATHLETE
225:kelapstick
206:talk to me
177:talk to me
148:talk to me
133:WP:ATHLETE
771:Borgarde
121:View log
809:Comment
453:ngold29
389:ngold29
278:ngold29
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
635:Delete
553:WP:BIO
290:Delete
266:Delete
235:played
220:Delete
116:delete
92:delete
607:, at
549:WP:RS
448:black
440:fully
384:black
273:black
218:Keep
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
775:talk
767:WP:N
759:Keep
647:talk
643:BRMo
639:WP:N
536:talk
532:BRMo
478:talk
430:talk
415:talk
407:have
370:talk
362:talk
354:have
320:talk
311:Keep
299:talk
255:talk
229:talk
188:Note
159:Note
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
46:keep
523:did
473:DGG
249:.--
197:--
168:--
793:|
777:)
727:|
688:|
664:,
660:,
649:)
641:.
592:|
561:|
538:)
494:|
484:.
480:)
432:)
417:)
372:)
335:|
257:)
203:|
194:.
174:|
165:.
145:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
819:'
816:I
773:(
704:-
645:(
534:(
476:(
428:(
413:(
368:(
360:(
261:.
253:(
227:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.