327:, and even a couple of mentions in the nyt, which i can't link to from here. seems to me to meet gng, let alone wp:ath. what the article creator has failed to do is irrelevant. (note to Alex: many of those ghits are for another buck elliot who played in the 20's. i've picked out the best ones about this guy from the first three pages of gnews hits, but there were many pages to go).—
419:
Yes, he did. During the 2nd nomination. You made no improvements between the end of your 1st nomination and the start of the 2nd to delete your own article, a 2 year gap where you could have easily made the necessary improvements yourself instead of bringing it back to AFD so that everyone else could
447:
In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in
Knowledge (XXG):How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate
540:
see, now the discussion is actually about what it ought to be about; whether the sources indicate notability. you think they don't, i think they do. it's a useful conversation. your nomination and subsequent comments show that you didn't check, but just threw it out here so other people would
541:
clean it up. that doesn't seem like a good way to go about cleaning up an article. anyway, i'm sorry if i offended you and i certainly didn't mean to throw anything in your face. i'll shut up now and let people discuss whether the existing sources, and hopefully not just the best i found
345:
More than happy to withdraw (*edit* nevermind, the references above are trivial, routine, or passing mentions only) as long as someone actually adds the references to the article and we're not instead brought here yet again after zero improvement just like
475:
fooled me, but almost all of those references you gave are just bad. Only one article was partly decent, but I'm not about to declare a person notable because he got 'suspended' for a week for overworking. We might as well just throw
363:
Actually, hold the phone. I assumed that you had provided me sound references since you went through that whole speech about policy and that's irrelevant and so on, but really these references are pretty bad. Please don't throw
165:
501:(ec)Most of these links seem pretty trivial. The 4th is arguably significant coverage, although not great, and the 1st may be a smidge more than trivial (though not in my opinion).
567:
126:
220:
159:
607:
Fails GNG, without multiple sources of significant coverage. Also note that an article shouldnt cite other wikis like the SABR one as they are not reliable sources.—
519:
That's the word I was looking for. "This man got suspended from baseball for a week because he was, quote, 'overworking'" - "Who is Buck
Elliott?" - "You've won the
320:
316:
312:
324:
308:
424:. The references from the Pittsburgh Press and books were found easily through google and would have been more than enough to avoid both AFDs to Mealey.
376:
coverage and C) passing mentions. I'm all for keeping articles that are notable, and my requirements aren't that much, but being condescending about
242:
I'm actually going to go with keep on this one for now. Though we shouldn't really use Google News results as an indicator of notability, there
276:
62:
246:
337 "Buck
Elliott" results in the Google Archives. I'll skim over them later to see if I can uncover anything that mentions him in depth.
200:. Scouts are not classified as passing these guidelines, and the article's creator has made no further assertion of notability to satisfy
17:
368:
in my face and then give me an articles that only tell me A) He got 'suspended' for a week in the minors for working too hard B)
204:
from any reliable sources. AFD started after prod was declined. Author requested AFD instead of addressing prod, and I complied.
99:
94:
103:
421:
550:
455:
332:
180:
86:
147:
647:
373:
36:
546:
471:
cleanup, and adequate sources have not been found to establish notability. You made a big speech earlier, and it
451:
410:
328:
272:
251:
646:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
141:
465:
438:
197:
385:
137:
632:
616:
599:
579:
554:
531:
510:
488:
459:
432:
414:
396:
358:
336:
292:
255:
231:
212:
68:
90:
406:
268:
247:
625:
369:
187:
173:
52:
49:
442:
377:
365:
304:
82:
74:
595:
307:
esp D3, this is not a reason for deletion. there are sources attesting to elliott's notability:
612:
575:
506:
288:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
477:
381:
280:
201:
153:
303:—tis true that the article doesn't make the case for his notability, but as we read in
591:
608:
571:
525:
502:
482:
426:
390:
352:
284:
225:
206:
120:
629:
347:
520:
384:
is pretty bad. You say these were the best, so my outlook on this article's
350:. Author of the article requested this be brought to AFD, and I complied.
437:
is this really why this article is here? perhaps everyone should read
405:
I though
Eepfleche did a great job improving the Jack Mealey article.
480:
right out the window if that's how far we've fallen in requirements.
48:. The "keep" !voters have not shown the coverage to be significant.
464:
No, it isn't. There is a problem with this article clearly failing
628:, couldn't find any non-trivial sources that indicates notability
640:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
420:
do what should've been your job to begin with, as covered at
380:
and then giving me these articles as 'proof' that he passes
279:) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
116:
112:
108:
448:
template to the page that flags the sourcing concern.
172:
186:
568:list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
650:). No further edits should be made to this page.
221:list of Baseball-related deletion discussions
8:
566:Note: This debate has been included in the
219:Note: This debate has been included in the
565:
218:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
450:perhaps nominator will withdraw?—
422:Knowledge (XXG):Your first article
24:
1:
633:19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
617:09:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
600:22:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
293:09:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
69:19:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
580:14:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
555:04:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
545:, demonstrate notability.—
532:04:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
511:03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
489:03:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
460:03:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
433:03:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
415:03:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
397:03:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
359:03:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
337:03:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
256:03:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
232:03:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
213:03:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
667:
543:from the first three pages
643:Please do not modify it.
590:I agree with Vodello. –
32:Please do not modify it.
445:, esp part that reads
265:Note to closing admin
547:alf.laylah.wa.laylah
452:alf.laylah.wa.laylah
388:is not good at all.
329:alf.laylah.wa.laylah
196:This article fails
374:WP:Run-of-the-mill
44:The result was
582:
295:
234:
658:
645:
528:
485:
429:
393:
355:
262:
228:
209:
191:
190:
176:
124:
106:
65:
60:
55:
34:
666:
665:
661:
660:
659:
657:
656:
655:
654:
648:deletion review
641:
526:
483:
427:
391:
353:
269:Alexsautographs
226:
207:
133:
97:
81:
78:
63:
58:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
664:
662:
653:
652:
636:
635:
619:
602:
584:
583:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
535:
534:
514:
513:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
402:
401:
400:
399:
340:
339:
297:
296:
259:
258:
236:
235:
194:
193:
130:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
663:
651:
649:
644:
638:
637:
634:
631:
627:
623:
620:
618:
614:
610:
606:
603:
601:
597:
593:
589:
586:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
564:
556:
552:
548:
544:
539:
538:
537:
536:
533:
530:
529:
527:Agent Vodello
522:
521:Daily Double!
518:
517:
516:
515:
512:
508:
504:
500:
499:
490:
487:
486:
484:Agent Vodello
479:
474:
470:
467:
466:WP:BASEBALL/N
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
449:
444:
440:
439:WP:NOTCLEANUP
436:
435:
434:
431:
430:
428:Agent Vodello
423:
418:
417:
416:
412:
408:
404:
403:
398:
395:
394:
392:Agent Vodello
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
362:
361:
360:
357:
356:
354:Agent Vodello
349:
344:
343:
342:
341:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
299:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
261:
260:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
238:
237:
233:
230:
229:
227:Agent Vodello
222:
217:
216:
215:
214:
211:
210:
208:Agent Vodello
203:
199:
198:WP:BASEBALL/N
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
61:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
642:
639:
621:
604:
587:
542:
524:
481:
472:
468:
446:
425:
389:
386:WP:POTENTIAL
351:
300:
264:
243:
239:
224:
205:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
83:Buck Elliott
75:Buck Elliott
45:
43:
31:
28:
441:as well as
348:Jack Mealey
160:free images
626:WP:ATHLETE
370:WP:ROUTINE
572:• Gene93k
443:WP:BEFORE
378:WP:BEFORE
366:WP:BEFORE
305:WP:BEFORE
592:Muboshgu
325:here too
277:contribs
127:View log
609:Bagumba
503:Rlendog
285:Bagumba
166:WP refs
154:scholar
100:protect
95:history
50:King of
630:Secret
624:fails
622:Delete
605:Delete
588:Delete
478:WP:GNG
473:almost
382:WP:GNG
202:WP:GNG
138:Google
104:delete
46:delete
181:JSTOR
142:books
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
613:talk
596:talk
576:talk
551:talk
507:talk
456:talk
411:talk
407:Alex
333:talk
323:and
321:here
319:and
317:here
315:and
313:here
311:and
309:here
301:keep
289:talk
273:talk
252:talk
248:Alex
240:Keep
174:FENS
148:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
469:not
283:. —
281:XfD
244:are
188:TWL
125:– (
615:)
598:)
578:)
570:.
553:)
523:"
509:)
458:)
413:)
372:,
335:)
291:)
275:•
267::
263:—
254:)
223:.
168:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
67:♠
611:(
594:(
574:(
549:(
505:(
454:(
409:(
331:(
287:(
271:(
250:(
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
123:)
85:(
64:♣
59:♦
54:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.