877:, and he was involved in a significant trade relevant to the Yankees dynasty of the late '90s-early '00s. With all due respect to Mr. Wordekemper, he's a minor league depth player, who was never considered a top prospect, and gets shuttled from one level to another to fill out rosters, as other players get promoted or demoted. Minor leaguers have more sources available about them now than ever before, due to the internet age, but these sources shouldn't be considered enough to establish notability unless there's a good reason provided that the player is notable. Wordekemper is the kind of player I could see up for another AfD after his career is over, as editors wonder what was so notable about him. --
644:"hasn't played in the majors" as a blanket reason for deletions. If you check my article creations, you'll see that I created a few this weekend for career minor leaguers, some who may be on their way up and some who peaked in AA or AAA. My point here is that when we have a career minor leaguer, we have to see if, on that case-by-case basis, that individual is notable. Reasons for notability would include major awards (Golden Spikes, Dick Howser), prospect status (in the Baseball America Top 100, participant in the All-Star Futures Game, Strasburgian hype), and minor league accomplishments (old timers in the Crash Davis mold, such as
544:. The nominator is wrong in nominating it per "not pitched in the majors, he's not a major prospect, nothing much really." Pitching in the majors establishes more possibility for sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines, however, it is not a make-or-break thing. It seems ridiculous that editors feel that there should be such a strict blanket guideline that really has little-to-no logic attached. I have seen a 19 century major leaguer who has had less sources cited than many minor league articles. But that becomes
629:, not any specific sets of career events. A player who is an every-day minor leaguer for 13 years may be notable despite the fact they have never played in the majors. Creating a blanket reason for deletion without reason becomes ridiculous because it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. I'm not saying that is what you were doing here as I at first agreed with you. My only complaint is that your reasoning sounds thin and maybe you should think of citing policy in your next discussion to relieve confusion. --
828:"(46th round draft picks are typically expected only to fill out rosters)" If such were the case, my cousin would still be in the Texas Rangers farm system today. He was dumped after two seasons after a .250 average at AA Clinton. Most players suffer the same fate. Eric Wordekemper continues to make rosters not because they need to fill spots, but because he is a prospect that can actively contribute. They did not just promote him to the AAA club to fill a roster spot.
648:, might fit this). In my opinion, Wordekemper doesn't meet notability based on that criteria, but I can see how others would say he does. As for citing policy, that's tough since I brought up WP:BASEBALL's notability guidelines, which suggests that minor leaguers are not inherently notable, and it was dismissed somewhat callously by at least one person in this AfD. WP:WPBB/N is slightly vague, which is both beneficial and detrimental. --
869:
majors. If we were to consider any minor leaguer notable, Knowledge would get overwhelmed by pages of guys who played a few seasons of A ball, or even less. Though I have performed many AfD's of minor leaguers, some successful and some not, I recognize that there are many minor leaguers who don't crack the majors who are notable. For instance, today I created a page for
590:
criteria for notability and shouldn't be. Following the general notability guidelines should be the reason for deletion, not a trivial rule that states regardless of what his player has done, he is not notable because his has never played in the majors. Again, I agree that as it stands this article fails
662:
I would like to point out that I was in no way meaning to make accusations against your work or the way to take an article through the AfD process. I am very sorry if you feel that way. I was just trying to make a suggestion. Thank you for all your contributions. You continue to be one of the hardest
589:
is not consensus. It is not a make-or-break thing. I have seen deletion discussions in the past where the article clearly met the general notability guidelines were met but users asserted that the article should still be deleted because the player had never played in the majors. That is not the only
420:
They are not able to make a living from that alone. They are professional but not fully professional. Every single minor league player that has made money playing baseball is not a fully professional player. In my opinion the only fully professional players are those that have played at least one
813:
You're misinterpreting me. I have no pride on the line. I'm pretty certain this one will be closed as keep, but I don't feel that I'm grasping at straws. I don't see how a career minor leaguer who was never considered a top prospect (46th round draft picks are typically expected only to fill out
368:
I don't understand. You gave as part of your rationale for deletion that he is "Not fully professional" to which I asked that you please state your reasoning behind that assertion. Do you now agree that he is fully professional but that he does not meet the requirements of the notability essay. Or,
681:
Thank you. I know, you meant it well. You and I have had some disagreements on notability of articles before, but you always make your case the right way, so I respect your work here. I was directing my response more to people here who don't know me. Internet communication will never completely
405:
clearly states that "The
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees are a professional baseball club" and most minor league clubs have a similar statement at the start of each their articles. Are all the minor league team articles wrong? should they all be written to indicate that they are semi-pro teams? What
400:
of professional in the context of sports is "someone who participates for money. The opposite is amateur, meaning a person who does not play for money, but in an academic (e.g. college football) or other private setting." The people who play in minor league baseball participate for money. They are
643:
The lesson I (think) I've learned from this particular AfD is to make a better case from the start. You can see I typed that initial reasoning quickly. I was rushing, maybe because I was distracted by something else, maybe because I thought this was an open and shut delete. Anyway, I don't use
571:
regardless of anything else. That includes the 19th century fellows with little to no internet sourcing. Minor leaguers are only notable if they have something about them that makes them notable. Mr. Wordekemper does not have any such thing. I'm pretty sure a thorough look to the news archives
434:
If your criteria for whether a baseball player is fully professional or not hinges on if "They are not able to make a living from that alone" then you must feel that nearly everyone who played before the era free agency lacked "fully professional" status since only the most elite baseball players
336:
affiliate of the New York
Yankees. This is a fully professional league. If you dispute the fact that major league farm teams are fully professional, please state your reasoning. These are clearly not semi-pro teams. This article does need more sourcing, but that could be said of 75 percent of all
868:
Though this article has been improved significantly, I want to reaffirm my vote and see if I can provide a more convincing explanation. Minor league baseball is professional. However, it's not the most advanced level, and that is significant. Many players get to the minors and don't crack the
792:
Ever since notability has been established and the article greatly expanded and improved, the nominator has been grasping at straws to still justify deleting this article. If, "He has a lot of reliable sources because this is the internet age," is the best new rationale the nominator can come up
223:
Being on a farm team does not by definition make you a prospect. Lots of organizational players are filler, and as
Wordekemper is a 26 year old who was just demoted to AA to make room for a player who had been demoted from the majors to AAA, that suggests that he is upper level filler. You are
383:
Sorry. If I felt he was fully professional I would have changed my recommendation above. I do not belive minor league players are fully professional and are generally not notable enough to have their own article. If they have significant coverage in reliable sources that would over ride that
893:
Are you asking us to ignore reliable sources that help establish notability just because we live in an age where we don't only have access to our local paper and USA Today? By that mentality we should delete the statement that he was
Florida State League pitcher of the year because mlb.com and
842:
Touche. We can all agree that
Wordekemper has outperformed his draft round. Again, I don't think that's enough to make him notable, but there really isn't anything else I can say on the matter, except that AA and AAA rosters still need to be filled out as well as A rosters.
908:
No, I'm asking you to consider the merit of each source, as not all sources are created equal. And I question the importance of being FSL POY. What does that really mean? He had a good season in High-A ball. Okay. Is that enough to make him notable? It shouldn't be.
208:
You do not have to pitch in the majors to be notable. He is on a Major League farm team which by definition means he is a major league prospect. Your reasoning for this afd nomination is unclear. Please be more specific.
160:
766:
is an essay that was amended by a consensus of 3 deletionist buddies one day when one of them got upset that his AFDs on minor league players failed. WP:N trumps a tainted essay 100 times out of 100.
421:
game in the regular season on a Majo League
Baseball team. At this point it looks like you and I just have to agree that we disagree on this point. We can see what others think about this AFD.
369:
are you saying that he isn't fully professional because he hasn't met the requirements of the notability essay? If it is the second case, that essay does not use fully professional as a criteria.
927:
it should not be a reason to keep. However, the article as a whole is well sourced and there are other events cited (with reliable sources). That is reason to keep, not based on one event. --
793:
with, I think it's high time this discussion was closed as keep. This is starting to become less about policy and more about pride over the high possibility of 'losing' an AFD nomination.
228:, minor leaguers are not inherently notable, unless they've done something to establish notability. What has Wordekemper done to establish notability? Nothing as far as I can see. --
449:
The point about fully professional or not is not the only case I made. The major thing is I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. He does not in my opinion meet the
611:
It's not a trivial "yes or no" based on whether or not he's appeared in MLB. It's a matter of what makes him more notable than any other random minor league baseball player. --
487:
154:
625:
You should be more specific with your wording in your deletion reasoning if that's how you feel. The idea is to look at the sourcing to depend on if the article meets
289:
115:
548:. As it stands, this article fails the general notability guidelines, however, I would not be against changing my vote when (or if) proper sources are cited. --
567:
Actually pitching in the majors is a make-or-break thing, but only on the "make" end. An individual who makes one MLB appearance is considered notable by
352:
242:
Wordekemper was the closer of the
Trenton Thunder for a time. If I included that information, would this article be notable enough to avoid deletion?
225:
572:
will turn up only game logs, which are more plentiful than they are for 19th century big leaguers, but aren't enough to establish notability. --
120:
697:
257:
88:
83:
92:
75:
737:. I would request that the deletion discussion be kept open for longer than normal since the article is substantially different. --
175:
17:
513:
142:
402:
329:
873:. He received a then-record signing bonus, was a top prospect (rated in the Top 100 four times), participated in the
453:
and his notability is not established at this time. If in the future this changes I will reevaluate my position.
136:
1080:
932:
780:
This article has been greatly expanded since being nominated for deletion, with reference added that satisfy the
742:
672:
634:
599:
553:
36:
814:
rosters) and never did anything out of the ordinary (outside of a POY award in A ball) is considered notable. --
1079:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1065:
1037:
1021:
1003:
976:
959:
936:
918:
903:
886:
852:
837:
823:
802:
775:
746:
709:
691:
676:
657:
638:
620:
603:
581:
557:
530:
502:
461:
444:
429:
415:
392:
378:
363:
346:
321:
304:
269:
251:
237:
218:
200:
57:
645:
313:- Not fully professional and no significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing to establish notability.
132:
955:
440:
411:
374:
342:
214:
79:
247:
874:
182:
71:
63:
1033:
999:
972:
928:
738:
668:
630:
595:
549:
53:
894:
scout.com articles are from the new-fangled internet age. I don't understand this rationale at all.
406:
exactly is it about minor league ballplayers that makes you feel they are not "fully professional"?
333:
168:
511:- He may be fully professional, but he does not meet baseball specific guidelines for notability.
1017:
951:
924:
914:
882:
848:
819:
705:
687:
653:
616:
577:
568:
524:
519:
436:
407:
370:
338:
300:
265:
233:
210:
196:
1048:
899:
870:
833:
798:
771:
498:
435:
were able to make it through the winter without supplementing their incomes with second jobs.
243:
148:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
191:
Not notable. He's not pitched in the majors, he's not a major prospect, nothing much really.
986:
763:
586:
351:
This is just an essay but it is what is generally considered notable for baseball players,
1029:
995:
968:
49:
1047:
per those above. Expanded version of article demonstrates ample notability. Regards,
950:
Fully professional athlete that now meets notability standards in regards to sourcing.
664:
256:
I don't think so. At best, in my opinion, Wordekemper could deserve a short blurb at
1013:
910:
878:
844:
815:
781:
755:
734:
701:
683:
649:
626:
612:
591:
573:
545:
541:
450:
296:
261:
229:
192:
895:
829:
794:
767:
494:
397:
328:
The article clearly states and has a link that confirms that he has played for the
109:
785:
759:
455:
423:
386:
357:
315:
594:
and should be deleted, however, I think it is very possible to do a rescue. --
682:
replace real human contact because it's so easy to misinterpret things :) --
224:
right that you don't have to make it to MLB to be notable, but according to
788:. When the nominator put this article up for deletion, it had a total of
989:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
1073:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
540:
but only due to lack of references. The article does not meet
696:
Actually, what I should have done was suggest a merger to
789:
105:
101:
97:
167:
994:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
733:after expansion. The article now clearly meets the
488:list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1083:). No further edits should be made to this page.
290:list of Baseball-related deletion discussions
181:
8:
967:. Improved version. Per Brian and Vod.--
482:
284:
353:Knowledge:WikiProject Baseball/Notability
226:Knowledge:WikiProject Baseball/Notability
486:: This debate has been included in the
288:: This debate has been included in the
754:The article is well-sourced and meets
1007:per request of Brian Halverson above.
698:New York Yankees minor league players
258:New York Yankees minor league players
7:
1012:How come this hasn't closed yet? --
384:criteria as it would with anyone.
24:
401:not amateurs. The page for the
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
782:general notability guidelines
756:general notability guidelines
735:general notability guidelines
451:general notability guidelines
403:Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees
330:Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees
1100:
1066:21:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
1038:21:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
1022:04:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
1004:17:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
977:22:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
960:22:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
937:22:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
919:18:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
904:18:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
887:17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
853:20:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
838:01:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
824:23:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
803:22:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
710:04:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
692:01:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
677:05:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
658:04:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
639:03:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
621:17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
58:22:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
1076:Please do not modify it.
776:18:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
747:06:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
604:22:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
582:18:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
558:17:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
531:12:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
503:20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
462:05:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
445:16:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
430:16:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
416:16:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
393:15:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
379:15:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
364:13:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
347:13:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
322:06:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
305:04:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
270:15:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
252:02:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
238:20:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
219:13:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
201:04:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
646:Jason Cooper (baseball)
398:Knowledge's definition
875:All-Star Futures Game
663:working editors at
337:baseball articles.
1028:Fair question. --
44:The result was
1006:
505:
491:
307:
293:
1091:
1078:
1063:
993:
991:
790:three sentences.
762:is a guideline.
527:
522:
516:
492:
458:
426:
389:
360:
318:
294:
186:
185:
171:
123:
113:
95:
72:Eric Wordekemper
64:Eric Wordekemper
34:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1081:deletion review
1074:
1059:
1055:
1049:
984:
929:Brian Halvorsen
739:Brian Halvorsen
669:Brian Halvorsen
631:Brian Halvorsen
596:Brian Halvorsen
550:Brian Halvorsen
525:
520:
514:
456:
424:
387:
358:
316:
128:
119:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1097:
1095:
1086:
1085:
1069:
1068:
1057:
1053:
1041:
1040:
1025:
1024:
1009:
1008:
992:
981:
980:
979:
962:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
890:
889:
871:Jackson Melián
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
808:
807:
806:
805:
749:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
561:
560:
533:
506:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
325:
324:
308:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
189:
188:
125:
121:AfD statistics
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1096:
1084:
1082:
1077:
1071:
1070:
1067:
1064:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1046:
1043:
1042:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1005:
1001:
997:
990:
988:
983:
982:
978:
974:
970:
966:
963:
961:
957:
953:
952:Kinston eagle
949:
946:
945:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
921:
920:
916:
912:
907:
906:
905:
901:
897:
892:
891:
888:
884:
880:
876:
872:
867:
864:
863:
854:
850:
846:
841:
840:
839:
835:
831:
827:
826:
825:
821:
817:
812:
811:
810:
809:
804:
800:
796:
791:
787:
783:
779:
778:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
750:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
729:
728:
711:
707:
703:
700:. My bad. --
699:
695:
694:
693:
689:
685:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
666:
661:
660:
659:
655:
651:
647:
642:
641:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
623:
622:
618:
614:
610:
607:
606:
605:
601:
597:
593:
588:
585:
584:
583:
579:
575:
570:
566:
563:
562:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:
534:
532:
529:
528:
523:
517:
510:
507:
504:
500:
496:
489:
485:
481:
480:
463:
460:
459:
452:
448:
447:
446:
442:
438:
437:Kinston eagle
433:
432:
431:
428:
427:
419:
418:
417:
413:
409:
408:Kinston eagle
404:
399:
396:
395:
394:
391:
390:
382:
381:
380:
376:
372:
371:Kinston eagle
367:
366:
365:
362:
361:
354:
350:
349:
348:
344:
340:
339:Kinston eagle
335:
331:
327:
326:
323:
320:
319:
312:
309:
306:
302:
298:
291:
287:
283:
282:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
254:
253:
249:
245:
241:
240:
239:
235:
231:
227:
222:
221:
220:
216:
212:
211:Kinston eagle
207:
206:
205:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
122:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1075:
1072:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1044:
985:
964:
947:
865:
751:
730:
608:
564:
536:
535:
512:
508:
483:
457:~~ GB fan ~~
454:
425:~~ GB fan ~~
422:
388:~~ GB fan ~~
385:
359:~~ GB fan ~~
356:
317:~~ GB fan ~~
314:
310:
285:
244:Yankeesrule3
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
45:
43:
31:
28:
925:WP:ONEEVENT
569:WP:BASEBALL
155:free images
1056:rbitrarily
1030:Epeefleche
996:Mike Cline
969:Epeefleche
50:EdJohnston
764:WP:WPBB/N
587:WP:WPBB/N
495:• Gene93k
1014:Muboshgu
987:Relisted
911:Muboshgu
879:Muboshgu
845:Muboshgu
816:Muboshgu
702:Muboshgu
684:Muboshgu
650:Muboshgu
613:Muboshgu
574:Muboshgu
334:Triple-A
297:Muboshgu
262:Muboshgu
230:Muboshgu
193:Muboshgu
116:View log
896:Vodello
866:Comment
830:Vodello
795:Vodello
768:Vodello
665:WP:WPBB
609:Comment
565:Comment
161:WP refs
149:scholar
89:protect
84:history
627:WP:GNG
592:WP:GNG
546:WP:WAX
542:WP:GNG
537:Delete
509:Delete
332:, the
311:Delete
133:Google
93:delete
521:Westy
176:JSTOR
137:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
1045:Keep
1034:talk
1018:talk
1000:talk
973:talk
965:Keep
956:talk
948:Keep
933:talk
923:Per
915:talk
900:talk
883:talk
849:talk
834:talk
820:talk
799:talk
786:WP:N
772:talk
760:WP:N
752:Keep
743:talk
731:Keep
706:talk
688:talk
673:talk
667:. --
654:talk
635:talk
617:talk
600:talk
578:talk
554:talk
526:Qld2
499:talk
484:Note
441:talk
412:talk
375:talk
343:talk
301:talk
286:Note
266:talk
260:. --
248:talk
234:talk
215:talk
197:talk
169:FENS
143:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
46:keep
784:of
515:JRA
493:--
355:.
183:TWL
118:•
114:– (
1036:)
1020:)
1002:)
975:)
958:)
935:)
917:)
909:--
902:)
885:)
851:)
843:--
836:)
822:)
801:)
774:)
758:.
745:)
708:)
690:)
675:)
656:)
637:)
619:)
602:)
580:)
556:)
501:)
490:.
443:)
414:)
377:)
345:)
303:)
292:.
268:)
250:)
236:)
217:)
199:)
163:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
1058:0
1054:A
1032:(
1016:(
998:(
971:(
954:(
931:(
913:(
898:(
881:(
847:(
832:(
818:(
797:(
770:(
741:(
704:(
686:(
671:(
652:(
633:(
615:(
598:(
576:(
552:(
518:_
497:(
439:(
410:(
373:(
341:(
299:(
295:—
264:(
246:(
232:(
213:(
195:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.