Knowledge

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 delete. j⚛e decker 20:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Šišmundo Getaldić-Gundulić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced stub. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NOTE. Timbouctou (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete Does not meet requirements of WP:NOTE. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like notability comes from father's side. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 14:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

House of Ranjina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced stub. Could not find sources in English. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep; moved to Ragnina family.--Zoupan 10:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. I would tend to presume that all patrician families of the Republic of Ragusa were notable. There were only about 25 of them and, between them, they maintained a virtual monopoly of power in Dubrovnik/Ragusa for several centuries (up to about 1800), and their cultural dominance there was not much less. In this case, the corresponding Italian Knowledge article provides not only far more detail but a bibliography of several works in Italian and a couple of citations from academic papers in English (which, however, if online at all, I suspect will only be available behind paywalls). In relation to the nomination itself, I would remark that trying to depend on English language sources for anything relating to the history of Ragusa/Dubrovnik can be problematic. There are definitely some reliable English language sources, but they tend not to be readily available. Moreover, while recent ones will tend to refer to people and places using their Croatian names, older ones will almost invariably use Italian names which only bear a vague similarity to the Croatian ones. This reflects the fact that, while most inhabitants of Ragusa/Dubrovnik since at least the late Middle Ages have apparently been speakers of a dialect of Croatian, the patrician class generally wrote in Italian or Latin. PWilkinson (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - One cannot expect to easily find English-language academic sources for a Croatian/Italian clan which existed in the Middle Ages, certainly not on Google. I'd say that PWilkinson's presumption of notability above is reasonable. Additionally, the topic is historical and the content uncontroversial, making this a questionable target for deletion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 01:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: The nominator has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. The alleged sockmaster has been on the receiving end of ArbCom sanctions and, ultimately, a permanent ban. The motives behind the nomination have to be considered questionable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 02:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Closing as keep, but wanted to paste two sources I found on JSTOR (the latter more detailed than the former):

  ... letters made their way to the Ragusan Sorgo (Sorkocevic) and Ragnina families, both of which had been close to Boscovich as well as ...
  — http://www.jstor.org/stable/228462

  (3) RANJINA : THE SECOND HALF OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. Ranjina, of a leading merchant family of Ragusa, came to Messina in 1559, lived there until 1563, and in those four ...
  — http://www.jstor.org/stable/1768389, p. 339

  czar ♔ 14:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 as per consensus below. (non-admin closure) demize (t · c) 18:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Croix Sather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Self-published author with limited coverage; fails both WP:NTRACK and WP:AUTHOR. Blackguard 21:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, No valid reason for nomination, clearly passes notability and reasons given in nomination for deletion are incorrect. There are plenty of sources to prove notability. Most notably he broke the Badwater Solo Ultramarathon record of champion ultra-runner Marshall Ulrich. A simple search of his name or his book Dream Big Act Big shows the plenty of references, reviews and plenty major TV media interview appearances. Inspired2run (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: added 2 cites for Run across America and Badwater solo history Inspired2run (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: Added 3 badwater world record cites . Inspired2run (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: Added 2 media cites: Inspired2run (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: Corrected Bibliography formatting. And corrected cite formatting.

KEEP: Croix Sather is an award-winning Speaker and author with over 10,000 books in circulation and has held of one of the toughest world records to set. Passes WP:NTRACK, item 7 "Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body" for the world record he set in 2012 for the 140.6 mile Badwater Self-Contained Solo Crossing as noted at and .Theshot92 (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Knowledge alone is not a reliable source. The paragraph in Badwater Ultramarathon mentioning Sather was unsourced, making it effectively sourceless. Sather was not mentioned in link 2. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 09:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Numerous reliable sources have taken interest in this subject. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Mjroots (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Air Wisconsin Flight 965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS Avono♂ (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Question - Why was this article nominated for AfD only 13 minutes after it was created? --Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. although it is badly written the actual event is notable, and you can hardly claim notnews as it occurred in 1980. i suspect, that with a liffle digging changes in procedures may have resulted. All in all, though marginal, it ticks most boxes.--Petebutt (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. A commercial air crash with 13 fatalities seems likely to be notable, and Google reveals reliable source coverage both then and much later. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep A significant number of deaths and media coverage in reliable sources makes this notable and it gets its own article per WP:AIRCRASH. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep based on the coverage in reliable and verifiable sources regarding a plane loss with multiple deaths. Though the article would benefit from additional sources and editing , this meets any standard of notability. (05:40, 6 November 2014‎ Alansohn)
• Keep because the Information on the root cause makes it relevant. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:AIRCRASH. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) @ 19:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep : completely re-written!!! Can someone remove the AfD please!--Petebutt (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Avono: - I'm minded to close as keep. Any objection? Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

no objections raised Avono (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 snow close/speedy delete as a blatant hoax. Unless there were serious spelling errors with the title in Japanese, the complete and total lack of any and all Japanese or English sources (that doesn't rely on this Knowledge page) is very, very telling. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Pheonix cube anime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A possible hoax or just not a very notable anime. A five minute google search and I'm unable to come across any reference to this shows existence. Additionally it is "Phoenix" (so if this ends up with a decision to keep it should be moved) Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per by csd hoax ? Avono♂ (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Can't find indication of notability for either the anime or the manga (or any evidence that it even exists, for that matter). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete The en:WP article is about 5th in a search for the Japanese title, with no ja:WP article, and no obvious sign of any anime with this title. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 delete. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Punjabi computing resources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is just a collection of external links. John of Reading (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Knowledge is not a web host. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - This ain't a link farm. Furthermore, some info about the language being used in computing could be included in the Punjabi language article anyway; there's definitely no need to stuff up a link farm like this. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - unreferenced list article consisting of entirely non-notable items. Also linkfarm issues as noted by others.Dialectric (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 as created by a block-evading sockpuppet. --Kinu /_c 19:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thareshwarnath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:HOAX or not notable. The only mention of this place is in our article Anaitha which is also nominated for deletion. There are no cited sources. Anaitha was posted by user:Ravi kumar sah-sonar which was indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account. That name is similar to this page's original author User:Romeo Ravi kumar sah, which looks rather unusual. Knowledge is not for things made up in school one day. K7L (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 already merged, which is probably the best outcome anyway. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Post-closure comment: The article was speedy deleted under criterion G4; nothing was merged. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thai Airways International Flight 679 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. not notable and wikipedia is not a newspaper!! Petebutt (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Aviation incidents are generally considered notable and this article passes the general notability guideline because it includes reliable secondary sources such as the guardian and the Bangkok post. I fail to see how WP:NOTNEWS applies here as this article is about an incident that occurred over a year ago and there is next to no original research in the article. A flight incident where 14 people where injured is easily notable to be kept in wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete not really notable for a stand alone article with no injuries. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not seeing how this meets WP:AIRCRASH. The coverage at the moment appears to be nothing but routine and a case of recentism, and to assume that there might future notability would be crystal balling. --Kinu /_c 20:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable incident. Runway overruns happen all the time BTW this was at AFD once before....William 15:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Weak delete as not warranting its own article per above the above comments by others, but I do think that a couple of additional details (mentioned in the cited article from The Guardian ) may possibly be worthy of including in the entry for this incident at Thai Airways#Incidents and accidents: the fact that it followed another well-reported Thai Airlines incident by just a couple of weeks, and that the airline received attention/notoriety for covering up the plane's logo after the accident. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy delete as a blatant hoax. I'm also blocking the user since all but one of their non-Ender related edits have been to vandalize various pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Lewis Ender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a hoax. The cited sources under "References" section exist but they don't make any mention of him. Google searches for his books don't reveal any coverage outside of Knowledge mirrors. See also talk page discussion. Jinkinson talk to me 14:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 delete. j⚛e decker 06:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Alvin Lapian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable on itself, delete or redirect to the Boyband Super7 Dirk Beetstra 12:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: Unsourced BLP.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete, as an unsourced BLP. It's worse than useless, sounds like its been written by a relative or agent. We've absoltely no indication of what sort of roles Lapian performed in the soap operas (he could have been an extra for all we know). The information about Super7 conflicts with whats on the Super7 article too, so I don't even have the charity to recommend a redirect. Sionk (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete A biography with no reliable sources establishing any notability. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, and time to call?, consensus have reached. @NnAs (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 Speedy Keep. SK#2 It appears that the nominator's rationale are invalid and is not policy based. Article unquestionably passes notability. It seems the purpose of this AfD is to cause disruption. So, closing this speedily as no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion. SK#3 also applies because the nominator seems not even have read the article. The article itself specifies that the subject released a single few days ago. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 13:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Cristina Scuccia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This nun won the contest The Voice of Italy but, after that, she never recorded anything nor she appeared anymore in any TV show. So, even if it's true she won a talent, after the initial spotlights, her career seems to have been stopped without any kind of production. Therefore, this biography can not yet be considered as notable, neither as a singer (she released zero albums) nor as a TV personality (she practically disappeared after her victory). L736E (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, disruptive nom, no valid rationale for deletion, the subject easily passes MUSICBIO and GNG. Also inaccurate, according the same article she released a single a few days ago and an album, "Sister Cristina", will be released on November 11. She also keeps on receiving (international) significant coverage about her (eg, this article from The Guardian is from yesterday and this report from Reuters is from today). --Cavarrone 13:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, as above - no valid reason for nomination, clearly passes notability and reasons given in nomination for deletion are incorrect. Melcous (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: agree with keep comments above, there are enough sources to prove notability, I have also read about her in media here in Spain. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Inaccurate nom rationale which also has no basis on policies or guidelines. Looking like a case of WP:DISRUPT.--Oakshade (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, on the basis it's common to allow articles about the winners of major reality TV contests. I sympathise with the nominators apparent impatience with reality TV stars but, unfortunately, the truth is the winners and big characters get a lot of publicity. Sionk (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Cristina Scuccia has won 2 national competitions, a religious and a rock with regular Italian recognitions. She is singer songwriter over that interpreter, famous to international level and she has established a record visualizations enviable youtube. It is now about to go out her album "Universal." It has full right to have a page Knowledge with her great curriculum. --Bellone Simona (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 procedural close. Wrong venue - pages in the Draft: namespace should be dealt with at WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) ansh666 20:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Ajay Srinivasan (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an article under developing and there is one more article Knowledge:Articles for creation/Ajay Srinivasan under development, both leads to same person. If possible merge both and delete one of these two articles. Logical1004 (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sommer Contemporary Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't believe that this gallery is notable, besides being considered among the best in Israel (but not the best). Article a bit promotional. Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Promotional indeed--it seems that Nobili Vitelleschi Camilla insists on this. Such lists are always a bad idea. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, In my opinion notability is established by the included sources. The article clearly needs work. I do agree both with Gbawden and Drmies that parts of it do have promotional content, but I don't think it is beyond fixing.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep with disclosure I created the most recent version after seeing it come up on the Help Desk, I think. The previous ones were appropriate G11/G12s I forgot I couldn't decline the speedy as creator and self reverted. I believe the gallery is notable and if someone is willing to work with me to help the creator understand our guidelines, I think we can keep the promotional tone out. Among the best in a country with a small arts scene. Covered in NYT and Time, as well as a book more than meets WP:ORG. There are Hebrew language sources as well if someone can read them. I think the rest can be fixed via editing. Not an issue for deletion. StarM 03:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep sources look sufficient. Just googled Sommers = gallery = "Tel Aviv+ and an article form Time Magazine came right up. Added it . there were more. Granted, article needs expansion, probably using sources in Hebrew. There should be an arts district Tel Aviv article, discussing this and other galleries, events. ShulMaven (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep The New York Times called it "possibly Israel's leading contemporary art gallery, with a blue-chip roster of artists", and devoted several paragraphs to the gallery. There are several other solid sources. I agree with the presumption that good sources exist in Hebrew, but the English sources now provided are adequate. I cleaned up some scrambled wikilinks and will do some copy editing. Cullen Let's discuss it 18:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Although I do not read Hebrew, I looked into one of the Hebrew sources using Google Translate, a 2006 article in the leading business newspaper Globes. This is an in depth article of over 20 paragraphs, with great detail about the gallery and its owner. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: Demonstrating notability for galleries and art spaces can be awkward, but there is sufficient here with the Frieze and Time references. AllyD (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 redirect to Ann Marie Fleming. Move to draft space SpinningSpark 13:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Window Horses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NFF - film hasn't been filmed yet. Don't believe it meets GNG Gbawden (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose It doesn't matter if it has been filmed or not if it meets WP:GNG. In addition to the CBC ref already on the article, I see it's been subject of significant coverage already in Hollywood Reporter, Canadian trade Playback and on CBC Radio. Three WP:RS (or four, if the two CBC are distinct enough) meets my rule of thumb for "multiple" coverage. The article's a little premature but it seems to pass GNG and should be kept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the two CBC references were actually the announcement post and the audio stream of the same interview with Sandra Oh — so no, they weren't really two distinct sources. Bearcat (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ann Marie Fleming. While their is enough coverage to justify some coverage in the context of its notable creator, WP:NFF suggests redirecting rather than having a separate article under these circumstances because of the possibility that production of a film may be delayed or canceled. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In this case, it's animation so "filming" isn't quite the right term, necessarily, but it does sound as if the principal animation work has yet to be funded/started. I'd have no objection to a merge. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect for now. Right now work hasn't really officially started and until that point it's still somewhat up in the air whether or not it will get made. I think that it will ultimately depend on whether or not the IndieGoGo campaign is successful or not, although I know that stuff can fall through even mid-production. In any case, right now it's just too soon for an entry. I'll try to clean it up so that when/if more coverage becomes available, we have a good copy to go back to. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Just as a point of comparison, we don't create an article about a television series until it's actually been officially upfronted by a television network, regardless of how much advance sourcing you can provide about the existence and production of its pilot. We don't create an article about a new album until we have a title, exact release date and complete track listing confirmed in reliable sources, regardless of how much advance sourcing you can provide about the fact that the artist in question is working on an album. We don't create an article about a book until its publisher officially announces it as part of its upcoming releases list, regardless of how much sourcing you can provide while the book is being written. And that's the way we need to be with films as well. Things can change along the way which can result in the work getting abandoned or orphaned by its creator, or not actually picked up by a publishing/distribution channel — so as a general rule, we need to wait until we know for a fact that it's actually, definitively going to be released to the general public (else we'd have to keep an article about every spec pilot that ever got made and then turned down by a network, every film that ever entered the development pipeline but never actually made it out the other end, every album that ever got started and then kiboshed without ever actually seeing the light of day, and on and so forth.) I'd have absolutely no objection to sandboxing this in draft or userspace for the time being, and it absolutely warrants a mention in Fleming's and Oh's articles (Fleming's being in dire need of some actual referencing!), but it's not something we should have a standalone article about while it's still in the process of getting funded and made. Userfy for now; move back into articlespace once we actually know a definite release date for it. Bearcat (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect for now to Ann Marie Fleming where it can be spoken of and sourced as one of her upcoming projects. Fails WP:NFF and simply TOO SOON for a separate article. Schmidt, 23:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Move to draft space and replace with a redirect to Ann Marie Fleming per the rationales offered above. Deor (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect article but with possiblities... it good topic when is more sources found... 41.190.36.250 (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Move to draft space & Redirect to Ann Marie Fleming - WP:NFF KylieTastic (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Move to draft space and redirect for now per above. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 delete. j⚛e decker 06:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Enrique Odría (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:BASIC. I was unable to locate any independent sources that discuss the subject in depth. Someone able to evaluate Spanish language sources might have more luck. VQuakr (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete no sources covering him, either in English and Spanish. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. No significant claim of notability other than being related to a former leader (WP:NOTINHERITED) and even there it isn't clear what the relationship is. Suitable redirect targets are lacking. It doesn't seem that he will be a presidential candidate himself and the article on his party doesn't exist. Valenciano (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 08:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 08:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 08:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Being a candidate for an office that the subject hasn't won yet is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL, no serious claim has been made here that he passes any other subject-specific inclusion rule either, the sourcing isn't good enough to vault him over WP:GNG, and notability is not inherited. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

San Francisco Giants minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete This is explicitly a compendium of half-baked BLPs. They are "select" but this selection seems to be done by Knowledge editors rather than independent reliable sources. If the players are notable they should have proper, enduring articles rather than this directory-style ephemera. Our BLP requirements are quite strict and so should not be fudged in this way. Note that I'm probably going to repeat this rationale in all the other similar discussions (which should have been done together as a group). I'll do that later as it will be quite a chore - the sort of tedious activity which has killed AFD. Andrew (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The list actually includes every player in the teams minor league system by virtue of the roster templates. Even if those are the only things included in these articles, these articles should be kept. They are currently the only place on the internet that you can see the whole farm system on one page. Also useful for easy editing/updating of those templates. The fact that all these afds were done separately is proof that these afds were started in an attempt to be disruptive by an editor that has done that sort of thing before. Spanneraol (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 08:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 08:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 08:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 08:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep as valid list per wikipedia policies. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per above -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Muboshgu, Spanneraol, Dirtlawyer and Mosaic. Rlendog (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

San Diego Padres minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per wikipedia policies, VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Muboshgu, Spanneraol and Dirtlawyer. Rlendog (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

New York Mets minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as valid list. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Moboshgu, Spanneraol and Mosaic. Rlendog (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Atlanta Braves minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Moboshgu, Spanneraol and Mosaic. Rlendog (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Miami Marlins minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Moboshgu, Spanneraol and Mosaic. Rlendog (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Moboshgu, Spanneraol, Mosaic and Dirtlawyer. Rlendog (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Washington Nationals minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Moboshgu, Spanneraol and Mosaic. Rlendog (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 Speedy Keep. #SK1 Nominator has withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 13:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Chicago Cubs minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination Withdrawn It's snowing in here. Alex (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep every MLB franchise should have such an article as a repository for encyclopedic content about not yet notable players.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Dirtlawyer, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Nomination Withdrawn It's snowing in here. Alex (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Cincinnati Reds minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Dirtlawyer, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Milwaukee Brewers minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Dirtlawyer, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Pirates minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as valid list article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Moboshgu, Spanneraol and Mosaic. Rlendog (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

St. Louis Cardinals minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Dirtlawyer, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural Kepp per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Dirtlawyer, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Colorado Rockies minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Dirtlawyer, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles Dodgers minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to make a point. I'm just following the consensus established by numerous Wikipedian members that a player must meet GNG to be on this page. It's spelled out in my rationale above. The actions claimed to have precipitated this happened months ago and have not influenced this AfD. Alex (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Knowledge has numerous lists of topics, which topics in turn have wikipedia articles. See List of lists of lists. Knowledge does not in such circumstances delete the list on the basis that the list is redundant. So I don't think this is a proper subject for AfD. (Also, "qualifying" for a wp article does not mean that a wp article will have been -- or need have been -- created). The only issue remaining is what entries are appropriate for this list. That can be determined by discussion on the article talk page, or other appropriate talk pages, but is not an appropriate subject for AfD I would think. Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Combine? In the past, I see, a number of such pages were nominated for deletion in a joint AfD. See here. I now notice that these AfDs of the same articles have been made individually. I would urge that they be combined, pronto, into one. Per WP:MULTIAFD. Having multiple discussions of the same issue would waste everyone's time, without any benefit. Epeefleche (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural keep - This is a mass AfD which appears to be making a Point. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Muboshgu, Spanneraol and Mosaic. Rlendog (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Detroit Tigers minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters. The article is well sourced and "unnecessary and redundant" is not a proper rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete I was going to say "Delete" because I don't like these minor league articles, but when trying to find something to back up my argument, I came across WP:CSC so I decided these types of articles should be "Keep":

"2. Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this is not applicable for living people. - See WP:LISTPEOPLE.)"

But then I followed the WP:LISTPEOPLE link and it says:

"A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met:

* The person meets the Knowledge notability requirement."

The players don't meet WP:GNG (that's why they're on this list), so I'm changing my mind again and saying "Delete". — X96lee15 (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Even if the lists just include the roster templates they are important as they are currently the only place on the internet that you can see every player in the farm system on one page. Deleting these pages will also have the effect of leading to the creation of tons more questionable minor league player articles. Spanneraol (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I also agree that the templates transcluded on this article is useful. I don't know how to handle that in this AFD. These minor league articles serve two purposes: 1) transclude all organization templates (useful) and 2) holding pen for non-notable minor league players (not useful, IMO). — X96lee15 (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Thats then a content dispute that could be discussed elsewhere and not a rationale for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. @X96lee15:, this meets WP:CSC#2 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought it met CSC #2 also, but it specifically says it doesn't apply to lists of living people. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:CSC#2 states that it does not apply to living persons, so cannot be used as a justification. However WP:BASEBALL/N states that "Some minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players (for example, Minnesota Twins minor league players). This is exactly this situation. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree CSC #2 doesn't apply, but CSC #2 points to WP:LISTPEOPLE which is pretty explicit in saying that people in lists of living people need to be notable. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I also agree with what WP:BASEBALL/N says, but now reading WP:LISTPEOPLE, IMO that portion of WP:BASEBALL/N is invalid (assuming LISTPEOPLE trumps a project's notability guidelines) . — X96lee15 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. X96lee15 (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete This list may indeed be interesting and useful for fans, but since many of the individuals lack the references needed to establish notability by Knowledge standards, this and similar lists violate the guideline WP:LISTPEOPLE, which says in part: "A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Knowledge notability requirement...." Having a list of bios of nonnotable minor league baseball players is similar to including nonnotable residents of some town in the article about the town, or nonnotable alumni of a college in the article about the college. Knowledge is not a directory. There are other places on the internet where fans can look up the present roster of a minor league team. The team being notable does not justify having an article which is a directory of all its nonnotable members, any more than a college being notable justifies having a list of all its alumni, students or faculty. The only argument which has any traction would be an "ignore all rules" justification that these lists are a way to avoid having articles about all the individual nonnotable players. Edison (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy keep all. This is not a workable venue to discuss overturning a longstanding comprehensive system of encyclopedic coverage, one that has been supported by consensus for years. If someone really thinks that wiping away all this material would improve our coverage of baseball, open a comprehensive RfC at WP:BASEBALL. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per Larry and Spanneraol. This is POINTy. Rlendog (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas City Royals minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters.Spanneraol (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to make a point. I'm just following the consensus established by numerous Wikipedian members that a player must meet GNG to be on this page. It's spelled out in my rationale above. The actions claimed to have precipitated this happened months ago and have not influenced this AfD. Alex (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The pages are not "unnecessary" as they have all the rosters on them which aids in updating and they are also the only place on the net where you can see all the players on one page.. so it is certainly not "redundant"... your rationale is just plain dumb. Nominating all these articles separately is the definition of disrupting wikipedia to make a point.Spanneraol (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Dirtlawyer, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Cleveland Indians minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters.Spanneraol (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm just following the consensus established by numerous Wikipedian members that a player must meet GNG to be on this page. It's spelled out in my rationale above. The actions claimed to have precipitated this happened months ago and have not influenced this AfD. Alex (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Dirtlawyer, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 Speedy Keep. SK#1 Nominator has withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 14:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Chicago White Sox minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination Withdrawn It's snowing in here. Alex (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters.Spanneraol (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm just following the consensus established by numerous Wikipedian members that a player must meet GNG to be on this page. It's spelled out in my rationale above. Alex (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • That's absolutely not a proper deletion rationale.Spanneraol (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes it is. Alex (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• keep as valid list and per WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep every MLB franchise should have such an article as a repository for encyclopedic content about not yet notable players.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Nomination Withdrawn It's snowing in here. Alex (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Texas Rangers minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters.Spanneraol (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to make a point. I'm just following the consensus established by numerous Wikipedian members that a player must meet GNG to be on this page. It's spelled out in my rationale above. The actions claimed to have precipitated this happened months ago and have not influenced this AfD. Alex (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as valid list and per WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Moboshgu, Spanneraol and Mosaic. Rlendog (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 Speedy Keep. SK#1 Nominator has withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 14:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Seattle Mariners minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination Withdrawn It's snowing in here. Alex (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters.Spanneraol (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to make a point. I'm just following the consensus established by numerous Wikipedian members that a player must meet GNG to be on this page. It's spelled out in my rationale above. The actions claimed to have precipitated this happened months ago and have not influenced this AfD. Alex (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • If you weren't trying to make a point, then why did you AfD all 30 of these separately when you could've put them in one single nomination? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per pretty much exactly Spanneraol's reasoning.--Yankees10 07:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - This is close to speedy or procedural keep. WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Moboshgu, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Nomination Withdrawn It's snowing in here. Alex (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Oakland Athletics minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters.Spanneraol (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to make a point. I'm just following the consensus established by numerous Wikipedian members that a player must meet GNG to be on this page. It's spelled out in my rationale above. The actions claimed to have precipitated this happened months ago and have not influenced this AfD. Alex (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural Keep as this appears to be WP:POINT. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Moboshgu, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters.Spanneraol (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to make a point. I'm just following the consensus established by numerous Wikipedian members that a player must meet GNG to be on this page. It's spelled out in my rationale above. The actions claimed to have precipitated this happened months ago and have not influenced this AfD. Alex (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and trout per Moboshgu, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Houston Astros minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters.Spanneraol (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to make a point. I'm just following the consensus established by numerous Wikipedian members that a player must meet GNG to be on this page. It's spelled out in my rationale above. The actions claimed to have precipitated this happened months ago and have not influenced this AfD. Alex (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and trout per Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Minnesota Twins minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters.Spanneraol (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to make a point. I'm just following the consensus established by numerous Wikipedian members that a player must meet GNG to be on this page. It's spelled out in my rationale above. The actions claimed to have precipitated this happened months ago and have not influenced this AfD. Alex (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and trout per Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 14:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Toronto Blue Jays minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination Withdrawn It's snowing in here. Alex (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense and is his trying to make a point after he tried to add minor players to these pages and was reverted. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters.Spanneraol (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm just following the consensus established by numerous Wikipedian members that a player must meet GNG to be on this page. It's spelled out in my rationale above. Alex (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Spanneraol's reasoning. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 11:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep please do NOT remove these minor league player lists. They represent a place to start building an article in public (rather than somebody's sandbox) for a player who is likely to reach the majors, or a player who is on a top prospect list and may generate a viewer's interest. There are 30 lists containing similar data, and editors are happily keeping them up-to-date, so I think that these lists should be kept.

Oh and having all 30 lists represented as distict AfD items is the HEIGHT OF STUPIDITY. There should be one entry discussing this type of list, so that all thoughts are shared in one discussion topic not spread out over 30 (or duplicated in 30). Perhaps it's the way Wiki works, but <mutter> <mutter>. If it's true that this AfD nonsense was done because somebody was annoyed about having his/her changes backed out, then please BAN THAT INDIVIDUAL. This is the height of vandalism, IMO. Cpfan776 (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural keep - This mass AfD appears to be misplaced. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. This list as a whole fails WP:GNG. Furthermore, it's a case of WP:LISTCRUFT. The list is unmaintainable if we list every minor leaguer who has ever been in the Jays system. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The list does not, nor is it intended to, list every minor leaguer that has ever been in the Jays system. They are meant to list top prospects and 40 man roster players who have not yet played in the Majors. And they are being maintained just fine by the baseball project. Spanneraol (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

So it's a listing of current players only? This doesn't seem encyclopedic. And again, it fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Not true, the farm system of the Blue Jays is a concept that passes GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

So create an article about it. That's not what this is. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and trout per Dirtlawyer, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep - per above --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 02

28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination Withdrawn It's snowing in here. Alex (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Rays minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters.Spanneraol (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm just following the consensus established by numerous Wikipedian members that a player must meet GNG to be on this page. It's spelled out in my rationale above. Alex (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Dirtlawyer, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Boston Red Sox minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nominators rationale makes no sense. A list page has different notability requirements than an article. These articles are about the farm system, a notable subject and contain the entire rosters.Spanneraol (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm just following the consensus established by numerous Wikipedian members that a player must meet GNG to be on this page. It's spelled out in my rationale above. Alex (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Dirtlawyer, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Wizardman 15:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Baltimore Orioles minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a list page.. the standard for meeting the requirements are lower than for an article.. This is about the farm system.. Did you have to nominate all of these separately? You really need to be banned for this pointy behavior. Spanneraol (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to make a point. I'm just following the consensus established by numerous Wikipedian members that a player must meet GNG to be on this page. It's spelled out in my rationale above. Alex (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural keep per WP:POINTy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• 20-Mule-Team Keep: I'm not quite sure what about the concept of "This page is a list of significant players that nonetheless don't meet the GNG" is so hard for the nom to grasp. With his advocacy in this AfD of merging another article to this very article he's nominated for deletion, this goes beyond the TROUT level and right into the need for a Frozen Trout of Seafood Justice. Where the nom got it into his head that all entries in a List article need to independently qualify for the GNG I don't know, but given his comments on the other AfD I wonder if this is a case of reading into the guidelines what he wants them to say. Perhaps some mentorship is in order. Ravenswing 20:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Per the WP MOS (WP:LISTPEOPLE):

A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met:

* The person meets the Knowledge notability requirement.

People are treated differently than any other subject, so technically everyone needs pass the WP:GNG to be included in a list. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and trout per Dirtlawyer, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 Speedy Keep. SK#1 Nominator has withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 14:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

New York Yankees minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To qualify for this page, a player must pass GNG. If they pass GNG, then they qualify for a standalone article. That makes this page unnecessary and redundant. Alex (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Nomination Withdrawn It's snowing in here. Alex (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy keep.. bad faith nomination by Alex who is trying to make a point here. Spanneraol (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep along with all the others. Terrible reasoning that simply isn't true. Editor is clearly trying to disruptively prove a point.--Yankees10 07:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 08:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 08:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 08:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 08:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural keep per WP:POINT. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Alex is being WP:POINTy and I've already WP:TROUTed him. We have a long standing consensus on how to do this that he doesn't seem to comprehend, and now he's wasting our time and resources on this farce. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - The listed minor league baseball players are those who have been determined to be of some measure of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but WP:BASEBALL and the larger community believe would be better served by inclusion in an "incubator" list article such as this one. The Knowledge community, WP:BASEBALL, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter may be better covered as part of another article per GNG. This is just such a case, and well supported by the long-standing consensus of WP:BASEBALL, and several years of consistent AfD outcomes: KEEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and trout per Dirtlawyer, Spanneraol and others. Rlendog (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep on a WP:POINTy nomination, per Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Nomination Withdrawn It's snowing in here. Alex (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. (non-admin closure) There have been more than enough sources added to the article and mentioned here to pass the WP:GNG. — {{U|Technical 13}} 19:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Danny Sebright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete The entire article was written by one user, whose only other contribution was to add Sebright's name to another article (that could also use a good looking at). There is no indication of notability in the references. Of the two third-party articles, #5 reports about him within his capacity at the council, in a single incident. The #6 article is not about him but quotes him in one paragraph. Both of these are "business as usual" kinds of reports for someone in any kind of public/political work. LaMona (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 00:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Article has been improved upon and concerns have been addressed. minor contributor Sanjaya15 (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Sanjaya15

• Comment - I am not sure how you can say the concern have been addressed, no additional references have been added. reddogsix (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment At this point I would say that the article has been expanded, however, I still don't see anything that would bring this person up to the level of notability. I merged the repeated references to make it easier to analyze them. Here is what I have:

* 1-3: not third party, probably should not be used.

* 6-8, 11-12, 14: normal announcements of non-notable events

* 13: not about him (by him)

* 4, 9-10: Third party, but not enough to establish notability LaMona (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 03:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Kornblut, Anne E. (2003-11-02). "Foreign policy adviser puts aside early disagreement with Dean over Iraq". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.

     The article discusses Danny Sebright's relationship with Howard Dean. Here are a few quotes from the article:

     Danny Sebright, a defense specialist who spent more than a decade as an intelligence and policy official at the Pentagon.

     ...

     Sebright, who worked in the Defense Intelligence Agency under both Republicans and Democrats, left the Pentagon during the early planning stages of the Iraq military campaign.

     ...

     As a special assistant for the war on terrorism, Sebright had a front-row seat as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, made the case for attacking Saddam Hussein "up close and personal, 24 hours a day, seven days a week," giving him an unusual perspective now as he advises Dean on the same subject.

     The rest of the article discusses Danny Sebright's role further.
  2. Sheehan, Dan (2000-03-26). "Adams native sees chance for peace // Bermudian Springs graduate honored for work to solve Middle East problems". The Patriot-News. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.

     The article's beginning:

     Among the many players in the monumental effort to nudge Arabs and Israelis toward a lasting piece is an Adams County dairy farmer's son named Danny Sebright.

     He has watched from the front row as bitter historic enemies negotiated during tense summits of recent years, most recently January's abortive Israeli-Syrian negotiations in Shepherdstown, W.Va.

     He has also been on the hot end of Middle East gamesmanship. During the Gulf War, he donned a gas mask and took shelter from Iraqi Scud missiles falling on the Israeli city of Tel Aviv, where he was based at the American Embassy.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Danny Sebright to pass Knowledge:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 21:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Glen Cummings (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Glen Cummings (musician) · Stats)

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

This page about me references my activities as a musician from 1985 to 1999 - mis-using my name and highly subjective set of information me, to create an inaccurate impression of me, and an innaccrate, incomplete representation of my activities. Rather than seeking to correct the entry, I seek its immediate deletion. It serves no productive purpose whatsoever - and was created and has been managed without my permission. I feel this page acts against my best interests and therefore is libelous. Please remove this page. — Preceding unsigned AfD added by Glenmtwtf (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• First of all, there is absolutely no way to know that you are who you claim to be. Secondly, it is not for the subject of any article in Knowledge, whoever they are, to say that they should or should not have an article - the criteria is notability. Your permission is not required. Thirdly, I see nothing in the article that could in any way be construed as libelous; that's not to say it's accurate, but that's a different question altogether and one that can be addressed by editing. Emeraude (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 02:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Weak keep. As it stands, the subject passes the notability threshold for musicians by dint of being in two notable bands. However in my searches I failed to turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources that would mean we can expand this article beyond a stub. I'm leaning towards keep based on the suspicion that as the groups were largely pre-internet there may well be offline sources out there somewhere. I'm afraid none of Mr Cummings' (if 'tis he) objections above hold much water - if we had to had to ask permission from article subject before creating articles we'd never get anything down, and the number of libellous statements in the article total exactly zero. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I dunno. I usually vote to delete articles where the subject requests deletion (per WP:BIODEL and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE), but these are not garage bands. In fact, I still listen to Scatterbrain occasionally. @Glenmtwtf: Can we get some kind of proof that this is Glen Cummings? Post to your official, verified Twitter account, verify your identity to WP:OTRS, or whatever. I'm not sure I understand how this article is defamatory, and I think your argument on that front is very weak. Keep in mind that Knowledge articles are not a source of promotion, and the articles are designed to be useful to readers, not the subject. I think that you – if you really are Cummings – inhabit a weird kind of zone where sources are very difficult to find yet you are still notable. I might support deletion if you can validate that you're truly Cummings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 03:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Galway Film Fleadh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability of this event not evident from references. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. A notable film festival. The article is already sourced (The Irish Times: "the Fleadh has steadily developed into the prime spot for unveiling domestic product" ) and a HighBeam search alone reveals more than 300 additional potential sources. Also covered in the Historical Dictionary of Irish Cinema --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep with a trout to the nominator, who first proposed it for deletion and then chose to send it to AFD after Arxiloxos added sources showing the topic as notable. Notability is established through topic sources being available and NOT through their use in an article. This was proven through the pre-AFD added sources, which were seemingly ignored, and through multiple others. Kudos to Arxiloxos. Schmidt, 10:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Lankiveil 09:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Emmanuel Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced BLP of a person with doubtful notability (the 66k+ Google hits boil down to just 107 unique links) The Banner talk 14:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I found some sources. Not unsourced any more. (Banner, I just discovered it's more fun to try to save AfDs. :-) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • My main hunting ground is articles/templates with links to disambiguation pages and trying to solve them. The Banner talk 21:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Ow! You sound like Hannibal! :-) Cheers. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - I added several more sources. The guy is a social media PR machine, but behind all that he's managed to get a lot of interviews both by him and about him in a lot of other media. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Trackinfo (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Snow keep: No longer unreferenced. "Deletion is not cleanup". Reminder, again, to nominator to carry out WP:BEFORE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Why don't you start reading the nomination? I also doubt if he is notable enough. The Banner talk 09:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• A "procedural note" from the old admin. Andy Mabbett, nominator is correct. This is not a BLP PROD, and please be nice. Why should I have a User Name?, I appreciate the work, but I don't see much in the way of reliable sources in there. One could go through one at a time, but really, it's blogs and zines and PR releases. Finally, the "Ray has raised funds..." paragraph, and the following one, is pure BLP fluff. Sorry to call it like I see it, but that's how I see it. If anyone can prove that these awards are in any way notable, then it's a different story. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 02:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 02:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. Lankiveil 09:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Andreas Martin (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of any international profile. Took part in a fringe Eurovision contest but failed to win. The page in German has no references and a search does not any notability under WP:MUSIC Karst (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep The article is brief and not at all detailed, but that is not sufficient reason to delete. In German Knowledge, the Andreas Martin article has much more detail (including a lifetime work award) and his discography indicates charting albums and singles in Germany over several decades. Is this a case of us English speakers haven't heard of him, so he ain't notable? I don't know - my German isn't good enough - but a better approach might be simply to tag the article for expansion from German. Emeraude (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete The article should be deleted because it lacks sufficient content and references. The article contains one sentence that gives information about the singer's date and place of birth and another sentence that claims the singer won third place in some contest but does not provide a reference to this. The one reference in the article is of the singer's official website, which is in German. The goal of this article should be to provide well researched information about this singer so the English speaking person can learn more about this singer. Since this article does not even come close to this goal, it should be deleted.Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Response: WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles is quite clear. A singer passes muster if they meet one or more of the criteria. Andreas Martin satisfies at least five, including numbers 2 (Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart), 5 (Has released two or more albums on a major record label), 7 (Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style), 8 (Has won or been nominated for a major music award), 9 (Has won or placed in a major music competition). It's also likely he qualifies as composer/lyricist. Yes, the article lacks content (so translate some from the German Knowledge or tag it as a stub) and references (ditto, or tag as refimprove; or find some - which took 30 seconds just now for the OGAE result) but these are not in themselves reasons to delete. Emeraude (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep as passing WP:MUSICBIO. Can somebody please add in information and citations from de.wikipedia? My German translation skills are even worse than my French skills. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Comment" As I noted when I listed this for deletion, the page in German has no references whatsoever, which is why the translation would not be advisable. It appears that he has had some minor hits on the 1980s, but none of this has been verified anywhere. I looked for some interviews or articles, but as the German page had none, it is difficult to unearth relevant ones. It appears the page came into being from the creation of this OGAE_Second_Chance_Contest_1989 page. Karst (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 02:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The (English) article has references now, found from the external links in the German article. Emeraude (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - obviously per current sources, and plenty more available: "Andreas Martin" + "schlager" gets plentiful hits in Google Books, the singer has several best of compilations in series with other notable Euro artists. Can I ask User:Karst why didn't you notify article creator? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 02:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Theni medical college (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 23:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 23:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to be a degree-awarding college, which are kept per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep It is an Accredited Degree awarding Government college.It is recognized by the Medical Council of India as per this and affiliated to the The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University. It is called Theni Government Medical College. This confirms it .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I was originally going to move this page to Theni Medical College, but it appears that a duplicate article exists there. If we keep this article, we should delete its duplicate and move this article to Theni Medical College. Natg 19 (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 02:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep This as an accredited, degree awarding educational institution, so it should be kept. All of the other problems listed can be fixed through editing, so they are not grounds for deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons already given. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Raoul Weiler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As written, this seems to utterly fail Knowledge:Notability (people). Ego Hunter (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 13:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 13:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 13:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 13:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• delete. Poor referenced article, being a club president is long ways from being Notable. failing WP:N - Krutim 11:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 00:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of any kind of notability. Academic publishing record shows only one paper with more than single-digit citations, far below the standard of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I really don't see the notability under either WP:PROF or WP:GNG and I've done a little of my own searching around and not com up with more.

This !vote is weak because the nominator seems to have 30 minute total contribution history to Knowledge that exclusively involved nominating visible Wikimedia leaders' biographies for deletion. That contribution history, the username and user page, seems to me like somebody it might be trying to make a WP:POINT. I'm willing to give a subject a little more benefit of the doubt in this kind of case.

Full disclosure, I found this because they also nominated the biography about me in the same session. Additionally, I have met Weiler but I don't believe we ever had a conversation. —mako๛ 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Strong Keep as per I am One of Many. Thank you for doing a much more thorough job than I did. I did a literature search and didn't come back with much but I believe you. Even if I was doubtful, the World Academy of Art and Science is easily enough on its own. Thanks for figuring this out! —mako๛ 07:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

He is an emeritus professor and I think a substantial portion of his notable work is not in English, so it will take a little digging to make a nice article on him. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Keep He meets WP:PROF #3 as a member of World Academy of Art and Science . Perhaps with this new finding, User:Benjamin Mako Hill and David Eppstein might want to reexamine this case? The academic literature also appears to support WP:PROF #1.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If this academy takes people such as Weiler as members, I have to assume it is on the basis of their activism and not on their scientific contributions. (This is not intended as a put-down in any way of Weiler, merely a statement that what I can see of his scientific publication record does not adequately explain his membership in this group.) As such, it is probably not the specific type of society described in WP:PROF#C3 and we should look for a demonstration of notability via WP:GNG rather than via WP:PROF. So where is the in-depth coverage of Weiler that would be required for that? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - member of World Academy of Art and Science, President of the Club of Rome, Gusi Peace Prize laureate, wrote or edited 12 books, president of the Royal Society of Flemish Engineers, VP of European Academy of Sciences and Arts, UN World Summit participants twice, now working with UNESCO. To me this is a case where even if no one thing is a slam dunk, he has so many indicators of notability that I don't have trouble believing we'd find sufficient sources if they were all in English. --— Rhododendrites \\ 16:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Santiago Gramática (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON because the professional experience he has is a couple of tryouts in AF2. He also fails WP:NCOLLATH because he did not win an award, was not named All-American, and by being a kicker, he had no media attention in college, and since USF was independent when he played there, he wasn't named to an all-conference team. His only reason for any sort of notability is he is Martín and Bill Gramática's brother, otherwise nobody would have any idea who he is. Rockchalk717 03:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender||lambast 04:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. lavender||lambast 04:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 14:33, 28, October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable college football player and wannabe minor league pro. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards), nor professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in a regular season game in a major pro league). Fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 00:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Biggest claim to fame is having notable brothers and that's not a valid reason to have an article.Mdtemp (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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.