Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman)

1182:. The only sources which provide prose coverage about the subject are the New York Times article ("A new man covered third base for the local team. He is an amateur, and gave his name as "Jones". It is believed that he will join the Mets. He played a very good game") and the Sporting Life article (which says almost exactly the same thing and therefore likely isn't a separate source anyway). This is not significant coverage of the subject. The other sources are either statistics databases or are included for background only. The article is a good illustration of why the GNG exists, because with so little information about the subject to work with the article is instead almost entirely about his team and the (unremarkable) game he played in. I disagree that more sources are likely to exist, any sources would be published in the United States, in English, and would be in the public domain, making them likely to appear in digitised newspaper archives. Nor is it surprising that someone only known for playing in one unremarkable baseball game would not get much biographical coverage. 670:. This guy is a very obscure player who had vanishingly little impact on the sport of baseball. The problem is that American baseball fans are religious about players and compiling stats & information. This makes it a virtual certainty that any player, no matter how obscure, will have enough written about them by reliable sources for a Knowledge (XXG) article. I also think it's bullshit to nominate someone for deletion solely because we don't know his first name. We don't know Jesus' "real" last name or even if he had one. The "true name" of the Abrahamic God (the 2475:. It's an article about a single game of baseball played on 30 April 1885. We've published that article under Jones' name, but if we changed the title to what the article's actually about, then suddenly the whole matter becomes incredibly clear: a description of one baseball game can't survive as a separate article. Of course, we could change its scope to focus more on Mr Jones, but at that point our article is about one person's role in a game of baseball played on 30 April 1885. So I think we've exhausted all the alternatives to deletion. 1499:(which contains NBASE) makes it extra clear that this is also the case here. Thus, keep opinions which are only based on the SNG (this seems to be most of them) ought to be disregarded when closing this AfD. Despite two reliable secondary (or are they secondary?) sources being cited, I don't think the amount of content in those sources can be considered significant coverage, so I think this fails the GNG. 2299:, which is the only notability requirement that matters in the end. The SNGs only exist to give presumed notability to an article subject, suggesting that there would be sources out there to meet the GNG. But if an actual exhaustive search is given for such sources and not found, then the SNG is ultimately failed and the presumed notability found to be wrong. Hence, the subject is non-notable. 31: 81:. This is a close and contentious one, but the weight of policy-and-guideline-based arguments seems to fall on the side of a redirect to a suitable place - the article subject prima facie passes a notability guideline, but vanishingly little content has been brought up that could be put into such an article. Deleting and/or redirecting also seems more favoured numerically. 1205:. I participated in the recent DRV, and !voted to overturn the close as keep. Just to confirm, I believe the correct policy decision here is to redirect, given that the article is not a bio - it's just an extended discussion about one baseball game - and there is no evidence that any sourcing exists on which a properly structured bio could be created. Thus it fails 1985:

retained (and the information is probably best presented in a list), all the extraneous blurble needs to go. Excessive discussion of the team's mediocre season, and the spelling of the name of the umpire in that one game (?!) are just there to pad the article out and mask the lack of content. That too is a bit misleading.

1061:. Is it kind of silly? Yes. Is there some content here that isn't directly about Jones? Yes. But I see that there is an article at this title, and I'd go so far as to say it's a pretty good one, warts and all. Sure, there is not a lot of information available about the guy, but there's plenty of coverage (from the 1984:

are inappropriate and a bit misleading. That player was notable for his very bad play, which sources commented on extensively. This sort of coverage does not seem to exist, and you wouldn't expect it to for someone who was OK but unexceptional in their only appearance. I also think if this article is

1912:

fails GNG. I'm entirely happy that brief details from this attempt should be added to the list article etc..., but this is not a suitable subject for a full article in my view. I doubt the game - which is what the article is actually about as written - could justifiably be considered a notable one so

1858:

I understand completely, that if you want something deleted...you will find something in the servers of Knowledge (XXG) to support that outcome. SNG exists for automatic notability. One game played in the NFL for instance. Automatic notability. You can raise or lower the bar based upon minutia or you

1572:

it is a longstanding disagreement. SNG - NBASE says he has to have played in one game, WP:N says subject must pass sng or gng. But we both know a person can turn up a contradictory essay, guideline or policy to support their delete rationale - or a redirect which is essentially also a delete. I have

996:

We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but

478:

2506:

game and no one bothered to even record his first name, there's inherently a lack of notability. The concept that playing a single game – significant coverage be damned – means automatic notability is misguided and antithetical to encyclopedic standards. While playing in Major League Baseball today

1930:

It is common for people in past centuries to have little known about them because record-keeping was more onerous and the passage of time tends to destroy information. But the older the subject, the more cachet it acquires an antiquarian way and so that offsets the loss of information. The career

1793:

It is as you say. Whatever consensus is established here or there or anywhere. It is rather pedantic to say SNG is trumped by GNG because it is exactly not what is stated in N. Look at the many Olympic athlete stubs - there is presently a discussion about their presumed notability. It is automatic?

1724:

One key word in both of your quotes is "presumed". The point I'm making is that the presumption of notability offered by passing a normal SNG (normal, so not the specific exceptions which operate on different principles) can be overruled by failing the GNG. Yes, the the GNG and the normal SNGs both

2444:

I never understand why editors becomes so invested in a deletion. Like your comments, telling a closer to dismiss rationales that do not shout demand we scrub this article from the project. A phrase comes to mind: You don't have to blow out my candle to make yours glow brighter. You have made your

1705:

My point is that we can raise the hurdle as high as we want based on our predisposition, or we can ferret out a sentence to support our position. But this one is over. The same occurred with Footy. Editors raised the bar, and it was the same four editors creating their quorum consensus. Carry on-

1081:

applies to events which happened in 1885, and my coatracks don't feel particularly bombarded. It feels like the real issue at hand in this discussion is whether the article is silly; or, rather, whether it is silly for us to have an article about this guy. That's arguable, and it may even be true,

721:

The article's length masks the fact that it contains only four sentences about Mr. Jones: "Defensively, Jones recorded two putouts and four assists." "When batting, Jones had one hit at four at bats, for a batting average of .250." "Both The New York Times and Sporting Life remarked that Jones had

2294:

I've just finished removing all of the padding fluff about the team's season and extra information that has nothing to do with Jones (such as the umpire's name being misspelled added in as some sort of relevant information). There was an amazing amount of padding material put into this article to

1546:

No, the GNG is leading for the pre-internet era, too. The whole point of notability is to exclude subjects about which a proper article cannot be written. Everything in a Knowledge (XXG) article ought to be cited to reliable independent secondary sources, so I don't see how we can write a proper

1310:

I have used my discretion and interpreted the guideline. You are very active in this AfD refuting rationales that say Keep. Perhaps start an RFC like the one for Olympians. The guidelines show that an article has to pass one or the other. Those who favor deletion say they must pass both. And as

290:

does not exist. In this case, the author of this article has apparently extensively researched the subject and has cited all kinds of match reports and baseball statistics, but nothing resembling substantial coverage of the man himself. Any presumption of notability has therefore been rebutted.

1772:

To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.

1701:

Baseball figures are presumed notable if they: 2. Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League, or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic,

1186:

is not a substitute for the GNG: "the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline". In this case the

849:

1812:

I will just point out that I have explained how your quotes are consistent with my view of the guidelines, but you have not explained how my quotes fit with your view. You have tried to 'counter' the parts of the guidelines that I pointed out by citing another part of the guidelines which you

2356:. That is how notability is determined on Knowledge (XXG). The only purpose of the SNGs is to give presumed notability that an article subject would meet the GNG. But if an actual search for sources finds that to be wrong, then the GNG is failed, as is the SNG and its presumed notability. 1931:

of early sportsmen is of particular interest to sports historians because they were the pioneers who established foundations of the sport. And, as such articles are not BLPs there is no pressing reason to make them disappear. While notability is just a guideline, our policies such as

1622:

I am sure that you are exactly right, and I am exactly right. The myriad of possibilities creates obfuscation; especially at AfD. All that matters is who shows up to weigh in: and after any sort of backchannel Knowledge (XXG) process like ANI or DRV, the organic AfD process is sullied.

556:

folks were focused on format, prose & sources, but not on content relative only to the player. I mean, since when do we consistently write about our references in the context of the article: baseball-reference was mentioned 6 times. Most of that article would be better off in

397:

I've removed the fluff that had nothing to do with the player which was about 40% of the article. Still could be trimmed down, but if his first name was known then we'd keep the article. It was an achievement to get almost 10K bytes about a 4 AB career - maybe written on a dare?

2352:), "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Knowledge (XXG)." Every article on Knowledge (XXG) has to meet the 1157:, they don't contribute to notability, which is of course based on what reliable sources say about the person himself. Redirection ensures that no directly pertinent content is lost. And finally, this is hardly a novel position: precisely the same arguments carried the day at 802:: The problem is that Newspapers.com searches look for those words on a page, not necessarily a specific article of that page. Jones being a generic name results in lots of pages seeming to match. A cursory search did not yield any relevant pages for this baseball player.— 987:

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline ... conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be

285:

I assume that there is a special notability guideline that presumes the notability of somebody who played baseball at this level, but this presumption of notability can be rebutted if it is shown that the substantial coverage in reliable sources required by

1463:

Thanks for that, I see that the same article is the one you showed me. I think I got mixed up only looking at the Sporting News article displayed in the article. Thanks and sorry I did not look closer at the existing refs or the one you shared with me.

1153:. NBASE provides a presumption of notability, but it's a rebuttable one. Jones fails the GNG, as Bagumba explains: some stats and a few sentences in the press do not significant coverage make. While the coatrack-esque tangents aren't necessarily 1382:

That was not the actual newspaper as seen in the article. I am finding a player who appears in 1885 right after this, who only went by Jones played for Cincinati. I am checking if it is the same person. My newspaper account, it is a tough slog.

2191:("It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)"). This sort of content is what makes Knowledge (XXG) special to me, and why it is fantastic that it is 2156:

to me, unless the source actually says they are the same person and not a different person who happens to have the same very common surname. As has been noted a bunch of baseball statistics sites don't list him as playing in any other game.

381:. Fails GNG. The article pads out three short sentences and a line of statistics from a brief match report. I would restore the former redirect rather than delete in case his first name and other biographical details should ever be found. 2535:"A new man covered third base for the local team. He is an amateur, and gave his name as "Jones."" Defensively, Jones recorded two putouts and four assists. When batting, Jones had one hit at four at bats, for a batting average of .250. 722:

played 'a very good game'." "The New York Times said that Jones was expected to join the Metropolitans; however, Jones never played for the team again." This is not enough for an article, and I doubt that anything more will be found.

1424:. My point is that the article's clipping is not actually attributed to this newspaper - it says Sporting news - so I searched for the actual local newspaper. A small detail - I am still looking for more news of this Jones. 239: 674:) has been lost to time. While I don't think this player is on the level of importance of those two figures, the idea that because parts of someone's name were lost means they're not notable is not based in reality. 1692:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right;

1859:

can follow the SNG. It is a debate, and we have different interpretations, there is no reason to dumb down your argument for me, I have several college degrees. Seems several other participants here agree with me.

2007: 1235: 1003: 601: 465: 282:. There is just not enough material about him to write a biographical article, as this article proves: it is essentially only about his one (unremarkable) game and his team, rather than about him as a person. 1114:- Passes NBASE. We have at least one featured article on a player who played only one game and is known only by his last name. For a subject over 100 years old the sources are not always readily available. 553: 990:

While the SNG is a shortcut that shows the subject is "likely to meet" GNG, examination of GNG itself shows the contrary. If the trivial details are removed from the bio, we are left with a stub. Per

586:

background context surrounding the circumstances should be provided. In any case, if the content is to be removed, then it should be removed in both articles. I still am firmly against deletion. --

2196: 2075: 1495:

Most topics' SNGs serve only as stand-ins for the GNG, and for those topics the GNG has the final say; this principle is quite well-established. As pointed out by Bagumba, the first sentence of

2406:

is very different, it explicitly sets out criteria which are supposed to indicate the subject is likely to meet the GNG and doesn't pretend that they automatically make something notable.

852:

That same notability requirement in 2011 applied only to minor leaguers. I do not believe this player has enough independent sources about him (and him alone). Based on this, I would say

200: 1729:

that the subject is suitable for an article, but a normal SNG offers less of a guarantee. The normal SNGs are subordinate to the GNG. This principle enjoys consensus, it is in the

604:

with a few paragraphs on each player, and then a more detailed write-up on the team's season article (or even the team's main article). You could cross-reference the content with

311: 2138:

Thanks I was laboriously correcting that. This may be the same person - Charles Wesley who took on the name Jones is how I read it. Im am sad about the pepper in his eyes. lol

1359:

That's the source that was already in the article from the beginning. It's the only one with any actual information about Jones and there's basically nothing other than that.

745:

Yeah, I hope to expand the article with more information about Jones himself in the future. I only just created the article, and so there is not much info on the page yet. --

233: 1158: 918: 826: 517: 2507:

may give a presumption of coverage, it's intellectually lazy to equate that level of skill and experience to an amateur who stood in once in 1885, and NBASE is irrelevant.

2537:

The rest is all fluff about the teams or the match, not about our anonymous protagonist. Maybe an article ought be written about this particularly baseball game. This is

829:

is still sound, and applies to this article as well. However, I would have to agree with some other participants that much of this article is unfocused on Jones himself.

334: 2533:

baseball game, and the only things known about him are what he did during that game. The substance of this article about him can be boiled down to a mere two sentences:

1311:

always, one can find a rationale to delete or save any article based on the obfuscated guidelines, policies and essays. It is all about who shows up to argue in an AfD.

2326:

the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right" (emphasis mine). I think it is fair to interpret that as passing

40: 2019: 1817:

contradicted the parts I cited, but I've explained why there is no contradiction. So, I'm somewhat hopeful that if you just let your mind rest on the sentences

700:

This makes it a virtual certainty that any player, no matter how obscure, will have enough written about them by reliable sources for a Knowledge (XXG) article

132: 534:

As an extra note, since I removed the redirect, I've brought the article to B-class rating and a DYK appearance, and I plan to continue expanding it soon. --

763:

for the info, in case you are wondering where I am getting it from. A search for the keywords "Jones New York Metropolitans" from the year 1885 on the site

147: 785:

There is also information in the sources listed in the article about Jones that I have not added yet, such as some statistics from Baseball-Reference. --

2090:

may square with our Jones here. He Went on to become an umpire? Yesterday I found quite a few news articles for a Cincinati player named Jones as well.

2402:

specifies how the GNG should be interpreted for that topic area (what kinds of sources are acceptable for showing that an organisation meets the GNG).

1438:

What I love about research is finding odd news. People poisoning each other, and getting run over by trains - just sitting on tracks, and this little

173: 168: 2195:

and thus we do not have to limit ourself to well-known and popular topics. Plus, the article has been improved since nomination with sources such as

177: 2511:

is correct: this is not a biographical article and there is no basis to apply notability as such: it's a mere statistic of one player in one game.

1794:

Or must we find non-trivial articles about pre-1924 Olympic athletes. I found it interesting anyway looking for clues about this Jones character.

160: 2006:

for reasons cited above. Apparently, in the period 1870 at to 1900, the unknown first name happened a lot in baseball. See the 34 names at

548:

You're missing the point. Half of that article isn't about Jones, it's about the Mets' season. You should be expanding and adding that to

1231: 549: 127: 120: 17: 2585: 1819:

The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing

764: 2223:

that he's not to be confused with another player with surname Jones that no source says that there is any confusion to begin with.—

895:

Never said that. I said "Pointing out that the notability requirements in the 2011 Lewis AFD were different than today." Rgrds. --

254: 2490: 1082:

but I don't think it really matters if our notability guidelines occasionally cause us to have a weird edge-case article that is

1827:

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and

1603:

does not establish notability independent of the GNG, the introduction makes it clear that it aims to set out when subjects are

221: 925:

This AfD is different, positing that the subject does not have enough coverage, not merely that we don't know his full name.—

2445:

rationale clear, now you demand in bold that the closer jettisons this article and poor Jones into oblivion. Let's move on.

141: 137: 2112:

It says Cincy sold him to NY in 1887 — I think you missed the period after "in 1885." I believe the player in your link is

914: 843:

Pointing out that the notability requirements in the 2011 Lewis AFD were different than today. The change took place in

1166: 2567: 69: 46: 1918: 2241:

player. Regardless, I stand by my keep vote per my above comment and disagree that the addition of two references is

1860: 215: 2550: 2515: 2494: 2454: 2416: 2393: 2367: 2339: 2314: 2282: 2254: 2232: 2207: 2167: 2147: 2125: 2107: 2051: 2037: 1998: 1970: 1948: 1922: 1872: 1850: 1803: 1788: 1754: 1715: 1681: 1632: 1617: 1582: 1564: 1537: 1528:

Or SNG is for pre twitter and internet folks. 1885 you didn't even have to give your full name to play in the bigs.

1516: 1473: 1455: 1433: 1415: 1392: 1370: 1350: 1320: 1297: 1276: 1247: 1218: 1197: 1170: 1141: 1123: 1106: 1053: 1036: 1019: 957: 934: 904: 890: 865: 838: 811: 794: 780: 754: 731: 711: 694: 654: 633: 595: 570: 543: 529: 511: 490: 452: 427: 413: 390: 373: 349: 326: 303: 270:

A baseball player about whom nothing is known except his last name and that he played one game. This makes him fail

102: 2275: 2030: 558: 498:- I am currently working on this article, and I fully believe it should be kept. If it is deleted, what is to stop 164: 1944: 624:. The content in this article seems salvageable split between the aforementioned pages. Just a thought. Rgrds. -- 386: 369: 1132:

to the page of players where only a last name is known, but deletion without a redirect would be inappropriate.

642: 211: 953: 970: 552:. And bringing up another article only brings the questionablilty of that article into light. It seems the 1914: 1833:(emphases mine), you might come around to the same understanding of the guidelines as me. Kind regards from 1443: 1439: 1397: 1335: 1162: 1654:

include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic

800:

A search for the keywords 'Jones New York Metropolitans' from the year 1885 on the site yields many results

771:

is a very similar article and a featured article, and I hope to model my expansion of Jones after that. --

261: 2380:

meet NCORP. So after reading these conflicting views, personally I'll stick to what it says at the top of

2362: 2309: 1410: 1365: 1260: 1227: 886: 790: 776: 750: 591: 539: 525: 507: 448: 98: 90: 2015: 1401: 881:

should be redirected as well? Because if so, that brings up the topic of deleting a featured article. --

2563: 2546: 2269: 2024: 1049: 156: 108: 65: 2192: 1954: 1936: 1932: 1737:

as well. So no, it is really not in line with the guidelines to say that NSPORTS can overrule the GNG.

999: 974: 469: 279: 2486: 2450: 2143: 2103: 2095: 1940: 1868: 1799: 1711: 1628: 1578: 1533: 1469: 1451: 1429: 1388: 1346: 1316: 1272: 382: 365: 2403: 2242: 2216: 1904:- there is not enough biographical information about the man to enable us to write an article about 1734: 1649: 1600: 1496: 1281: 1078: 982: 923:

Should we really be adding ones where baseball scholars have never been able to find the guy's name?

275: 2389: 2335: 2250: 2203: 2011: 1842: 1746: 1673: 1556: 1508: 949: 247: 2538: 2349: 1698:

2. It is not excluded under the What Knowledge (XXG) is not policy. And NBASE which clearly says:

1183: 969:

without significant coverage of the person from multiple, independent sources. The article is a

227: 2526: 2399: 2373: 2345: 2327: 2184: 2022:

unless you have seen them nonexisting. We ought not to rewrite history and make him disappear.

1767: 1588: 1256: 1074: 978: 945: 361: 2441: 2357: 2304: 2228: 2121: 2078:? Jones may have been a formerly blacklisted player. The reference cited here says Cincinnati 2065: 2047: 1966: 1784: 1460: 1421: 1405: 1379: 1360: 1293: 1243: 1214: 1137: 1119: 1032: 1015: 930: 900: 882: 861: 834: 807: 786: 772: 746: 707: 687: 650: 629: 587: 566: 535: 521: 503: 486: 444: 423: 409: 116: 94: 86: 58:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2562:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

991: 473: 64:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2542: 2330:

is enough, and I disagree with your comments about what the closure should or shouldn't do.

2267:

Same team, within a year, and same last name. In a newly formed league. Easily confused.

1981: 1587:

It is possible for an SNG to give a subject notability independent of meeting the GNG, e.g.

1045: 878: 768: 618: 499: 472:

for his team's season and the lone game he played in, and little about Jones. The guideline

440: 2353: 1730: 1661: 1206: 1179: 1091: 1070: 966: 287: 271: 2508: 2480: 2446: 2344:

That is because of the presumed notability of the SNGs. Read the first line at the top of

2139: 2099: 2091: 1864: 1809: 1795: 1761: 1721: 1707: 1638: 1624: 1574: 1543: 1529: 1465: 1447: 1425: 1384: 1342: 1312: 1268: 727: 679: 2301:

The closer should disregard any Keep votes above trying to say the SNG overrides the GNG.

2220: 2153: 1547:

article about someone when very little content about the person exists in such sources.

1286:

conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.

1226:

If the redirect is restored, I would like to merge/copy some condensed content into the

639:

In any case, if the content is to be removed, then it should be removed in both articles

439:

I've restored the removed content; I don't see it as fluff, especially considering that

2385: 2331: 2246: 2199: 2062: 1992: 1855: 1836: 1740: 1686: 1667: 1569: 1550: 1525: 1502: 1102: 1044:

or restore redirect. He played one game in a major north american professional league.

760: 671: 340: 317: 294: 85:

has asked that the history be preserved for a merge, so I won't actually be deleting -

2381: 2319: 2188: 2042:

He's not being disappeared; he's being preserved at the aforementioned list. Rgrds. --

1648:

to base our decisions on. Maybe you can get consensus to change the first sentence of

1592: 1264: 2579: 2512: 2113: 608: 1573:

likely devoted enough time to this Jones character, there are articles to work on.

2409: 2224: 2160: 2117: 2071: 2068: 2043: 1962: 1780: 1610: 1289: 1239: 1210: 1190: 1133: 1115: 1028: 1011: 926: 896: 872: 857: 830: 803: 703: 646: 625: 577: 562: 482: 434: 419: 405: 82: 194: 2534: 2303:

These claims are a complete failure to understand notability on Knowledge (XXG).

1913:

that doesn't give me confidence that we should write an article about it either.

2525:

The true gymnastics of the absurdity of this article and the blatant OR (namely

561:. I believe expanding these articles is well-intended, but misguided. Rgrds. -- 1595:

which says that subjects can be notable through meeting an SNG means that SNGs

1267:

is specific that a subject must pass our SNG or GNG. This one passes our SNG.

997:

should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.

479:

should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.

2237:

Okay, evidently I was confused as I had thought that article was referring to

740: 723: 675: 582:

Yeah, I can see where you are coming from, although I do think that at least

1986: 1096: 468:. As currently written, the article and its listed sources seem more like a 1664:), but until then, your argument is not based on the relevant guidelines. 418:

On second thought, I want to look at this when I have more time. Rgrds. --

1939:

are supportive of retention in such cases and policies trump guidelines.

1209:

and it doesn't seem like the SNG applies in this particular instance. —

1644:: there is no right and wrong here, but there is consensus, which we're 502:, a virtually identical article and a FA from being deleted as well? -- 1341:- Apparently a very good player who would only give his name as Jones. 520:

for the aforementioned Lewis article had consensus to keep as well. --

2219:

fluff that he's trivially mentioned there, there, and there, and then

2322:

reads "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below,

2014:(even obscure ones) are part of the fabric of baseball and its lore. 1404:, which is currently Reference #6 in the article. They are the same. 1770:#2, but leave out the qualifying paragraph after the bulleted list: 973:

of sources about his team and the lone game he played in, forming a

2008: