Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Baseball/Notability

1685:(ec) Shall we add something about how the article could be deleted without such sources? Too implied? If we added that, or generally agreed to delete improperly-sourced articles (and it survived general community scrutiny), I'd agree. If we exchanged a bunch of terrible AAA-and-up articles with good articles about any level of player, I'm in. How about a short (foot)note of explanation that we are trying to avoid a growing trend of people simply copying information from BaseballCube into Knowledge (XXG) and calling that an article? Too much? I guess I'd like to be able to go to a newer user, like the Fort Myers Miracle guy, and point him to this guideline with a note that, "without good sourcing, your article runs the risk of being deleted". (Post-ec) Per Spanneraol's legitimate concern, shall we partially grandfather in existing articles? Give them a month or two months or whatever before we start purging the conveyor belt created articles? — 998:'s question that started this section, I think there's a very close correlation between availability of reliable sources and the criteria that I suggested have been associated with a player making the majors. The Top 100 Prospects lists are, themselves, reliable sources (since they generally include a write-up on each player). Furthermore, there is usually a lot of overlap in the lists of the various publications, so you generally get write-ups on the same player from several different publications. Similarly, articles are written about number one draft picks when they are first selected, and they tend to continue to receive coverage throughout their minor league careers. If I were ranking the three new criteria I suggested in terms of coverage in reliable sources, I would order them (1) 40-man roster, (2) Top 100 lists, (3) number one draft picks, and all three would be ahead of All Star selections. 829:(ec) I do think you and I are close, 'cept for this: I follow the majors pretty closely, and I know the roster of the AAA club for my favorite team (which shall remain nameless so as not to antagonize brewcrewer, ha)... but I honestly couldn't tell you the names of anyone from outside my team who made the AAA All Star Game. I know ESPN airs it - or at least used to - but should a AAA All Star presumptively be notable? I could be convinced, and as an inclusionist I'd like to be convinced, but it brings up a slippery slope problem where post-season awardees would logically have to be included too since such achievements are comparable to All Star recognition and roughly as likely to indicate a future big-club roster spot. Better to wait till they actually make the bigs to extend the presumptive tag, in my opin. 2262:

the Internet and the expansion of the coverage of minor league baseball on the Internet, not because of an increase in notability. Many of these players have accomplished no more than what a minor leaguer in the 1990s or before accomplished, however they maintain pages because their name comes up a lot on Google searches. If, however, I were to create an article for a player who played from 1986 to 1994 in the minors, his page would most likely get deleted because he doesn't get as many Google hits, even though he is as statistically similar and as similarly accomplished as a modern minor leaguer who does get Google hits. I think we need to review notability guidelines for minor leaguers.

1900:

extraordinary honor, or if they have accomplished some historic achievement." I suggest that we use the same approach to minor league management that we're proposing for players--notability must be demonstrated through citation of reliable sources. I've modified the guidelines along those lines. For example, I remember an AfD discussion for a biography of someone who had been a general manager of a team in the low minors for one year, about 20 years ago. When I searched for information on him, the only thing I could find was verification that he'd been the general manager. That's obviously not enough to base an article on. Is this ok?

244:

altering the current guidelines... In fact, I am somewhat in agreement about restricting the ALl-star team criteria to AA and AAA All-Stars because the recent discussions have led me to reconsider the notability of the lower level minor leaguers.. AAA & AA All-Stars, Futures Games participants, major end of season award winners (Pitcher of the Year, Player of the Year) in the High minors... Not sure about a blanked inclusion of top draft picks, unless it's top draft picks that have advanced past the rookie leagues... As far as the Baseball America top 100 lists... I'm not sure about that either.. but it seems a good place to start.

402:

however... When we originally drew up the guideline, we supported All-Stars at all levels of classification because the correlation between an All-Star appearance at any level and mentions in a major media source was fairly high (although articles in the papers of record for home cities in the ultra-low levels of the minors don't often stick around online for long), and also because if any short-season or rookie-league player were notable, you'd think it'd be the league's All-Star. As an aside, looking at the past discussions on the subject at

1326:) I still don't get why the guidelines for the rest of Knowledge (XXG) aren't suitable for baseball. Requiring editors to look at the actual sources doesn't seem like a bad thing. Rather than coming up with some fast and dirty rule of "x many games" or any of the arbitrary milestones being thrown around here, why not simply use the existing guidelines? If having played a full year in AAA is actually a notable achievement, then surely there must be multiple sources on it. And if not, well, it can't be that notable. 36:

then, they have frequently been referenced in AfD debates. Some editors have disagreed with them, and not all of the consensus decisions were strictly in agreement. These standards are a good starting point, but my experience with AfD discussions suggests that it might be useful to re-open the discussion of the specific criteria to make sure that they are clear, fair, and are accomplishing what we would like them to, in terms of distinguishing the minor leaguers who can be presumed notable from those who are not.

2337:

accessable via Google or other internet search engines and so are being inapprpriately deleted. The issue predates the 1980s though, and is more serious for pre-1960 minor leaguers. I mean, seriously, when the PCL was the highest baseball league that played west of the Mississippi River, do you really think that magazines and newspapers in California were not generating significant coverage of PCL players, many of whom never made the Major Leagues due to the circumstances of the time?

1629:, and would make clear that the WikiProject doesn't accept the idea that playing one minor league game necessarily demonstrates notability (in the absence of reliable sources). I'll note, however, that there is enough coverage of the minor leagues that many players who haven't "done much" could be designated as notable. For example, Nats minor league pitcher Jack McGeary so far has pitched only 42 innings in rookie league and short season ball, yet he has nearly 100 Ghits on the 425:, or with any of the historical big leagues listed in the current guideline (Negro League, Japanese major leagues, etc). The NFL rule is very bright line and easy to interpret; the current baseball standard is not. A minor league baseball person could still qualify under traditional WP:V WP:RS WP:N standards outside of this requirement, but would not be able to use "inherent baseball notability" as a fallback - and trivial mentions on Baseball America lists wouldn't cut it. 961:

That's the period when major league baseball really established a monopoly over the professional game. The dominance of major league baseball was ensured when the Dodgers and Giants moved to the West coast in 1958, displacing the PCL from its biggest cities. The implication for notability guidelines, I think, is that historical minor leaguers will need to be treated as exceptions to specific criteria and will need to be judged on a case-by-case basis. For example,

1041:. Baker was a first round pick in 1999, cracked into AAA in 2004 but never got to the bigs. After posting an ERA over 7½ last year in AAA, he announced his retirement. He won various awards and such but it seems he's going to disappear into obscurity. The only sources given in the article are stats site and some guy's personal web site. What purpose is served in keeping this article? I haven't looked - is there something else to his life to indicate notability? — 727:

majors box score appearance" idea itself errs on the side of inclusionism - many players come up from AAA for a few days to fill an injured dude's roster spot, luck into a late-game appearance, and then go back down forever. Trying to extend "presumptive notability" further down the chain seems like a situation where good arguments could be made either way, but ultimately would tend farther and farther toward over-extending the presumption.

691:

century are available online and my local library doesn't have copies of the Chicago Tribune or New York Times from back then. I take it on faith that someone who played a single game for the Chicago Whales will have had coverage in the Chicago papers because I've seen the amount of coverage a player gets in my local paper after a single game with the A's or Giants, over 100 miles away from me.

1425:... I'd also like to see people forced into putting in a little more effort. We have too many people acting like bots and too few actually writing prose. That's what forces these guidelines to be created. Folks above keep shooting down my arguments because it turns out the sources are out there, but there is no responsibility put on people to actually 1365:

develop their own notability criteria. So baseball really isn't "different." Nevertheless, my experience suggests that any well documented article that clearly explains why the subject is notable is going to make it through an AfD discussion. The criteria we're discussing here are mostly just trying to help us establish a clear borderline.

142:. The goal of WikiProject guidelines should be to identify those players who are almost certain to have significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Having WikiProject guidelines should help us identify those players in a more consistent manner than what's used too often in AfD debates, which is simple counts of google hits. 320:. It's nothing but a rip-off of the Baseball-Reference site. What's the point? How frustrating must it be for readers to come here looking for an encyclopedia article only to find an exact duplicate of the information that is easily available at so many other web sites? We should strive for more here. Create the expanded article 2086:. I'll add a suggestion that rather than creating a biographical article about a college player or coach, I'd recommend starting with an article about the team. That is, rather than writing an article about the star shortstop of the University of California, Santa Cruz Banana Slugs, I'd recommend writing an article about the 2373:

debate... But in responce to your point, the players of today would be more notable partialy because their is more coverage of them as that coverage satisfies wikipedias general notability guidelines. Less people knew about the minor leaguers in the past because they didnt get the coverage, thus they would be less notable.

207:, etc., have exhausted all research on the player and come up with nothing. Therefore, it's a perma-stub so delete. Hard to believe that idea would gain any traction. So I suppose I am advocating a new thought process to notability. Establish the notability when I bring it to AFD or it's going to be in trouble. — 657:. I can wholeheartedly endorse a proposal of the type "MiLB players who have done x are considered notable because there is likely to be a lot of reliable, independent sources about them", but not "MiLB players who have done x are considered notable because they have a 75% probability of making the majors".-- 160:. Not whether more can be found now. Using that criteria alone, I'll bet a tremendous number of articles would be deemed unsalvageable and would hit the scrap heap. Do away with the ridiculous number of articles that are nothing but stat collections and, upon further review, are simply perma-stubs. — 2372:

If you want to read the entire discussion at the top of this page you will see part of the fairly long discussion that led to the current guidelines. The previous guidelines before that involved minor league all-star appearances and lengthy AAA appearances... The minor leagues remain a source of much

2261:

I see a lot of people supporting otherwise non-notable minor leaguers because said minor leaguers get multiple Google hits when searched. This concerns me, because many of these minor leaguers do not deserve Knowledge (XXG) pages. The reason they get more hits on Google is because of the expansion of

2119:

Can we at least come to a consensus as to whether Collegiate Summer League teams are presumed notable or not. Nearly every player who makes it to the majors via college ball over the past couple decades has played in these leagues. Of course, nearly all have played American Legion or Little League as

1851:

I have no intention of reopening the discussion. But typically, no consensus means no change, and here we did change the guidelines around minor leaguers. On the other hand, I don't necessarily have a problem with a requirement for a secondary non-stat site source, since I would expect that most AA

1777:

guideline address this sufficiently? I'm not sure any criteria that contradicts that guideline would have staying power anyway... I think it'd be safe to explicitly mention that "career stats and basic biographical info alone are insufficient for the purposes of this requirement" or something. It'd

955:

Before about 1960, the relationship between major leagues and minor leagues was very different. Prior to 1925, there were no farm teams and all minor leagues were independent. Furthermore, there were no national media--no radio, no television--and the newspapers focused on the local team. Baseball

753:

Sounds like we're thinking along the same lines. My gut feeling is AAA All-Star game is definitely notable; a single AAA game I might be convinced is notable if it was shown that's likely to have coverage; a single game at Rookie League would need really compelling evidence. (And I feel strongly that

183:

says, "If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." In other words, an article can't be deleted simply because it doesn't include its sources; a separate effort must

95:

My guess is that well over 90 percent of minor leaguers named to a major league 40-man roster will eventually play for the team. I believe that about 80 percent of the players on the Top 100 lists make it to the majors. And well over half of first-round draft picks eventually make it to the majors.

83:

This insight suggests that perhaps we should look for adding some other criteria that are more strongly related to eventually making the majors. The ones I'd like to suggest are (a) being named to a team's 40-man roster, (b) being selected to any of the annual lists of 100 top prospects published by

35:

discussions of minor league players over the last year or so, it's clear that there isn't widespread support for either of the two extreme positions—keeping all articles on minor leaguers or deleting all of them. The WikiProject's current notability recommendations were posted in October 2007; since

2517:

I tend to agree that exhibition games alone should not be sufficient to satisfy the criterion; although it is possible that a current top prospect, who has so far only appeared with the MLB club during training, may have enough significant coverage to establish notability under #6. I would suggest

2387:

I generally agree with you, but not quite. While that is true to some extent, many minor leaguers of the past were notable, and had plenty of coverage, but since that coverage was on paper and not the internet it is not as easy to find. Hence there is a largely false impression that minor leaguers

2316:

of him brings up apparently very little that is relevant to him. Nevertheless, he is still notable because of that statistical accomplishment, and no doubt was very notable during the time he played. Now, look at Tyler Mach. He played exactly one year in the minor leagues at the Low-A level, and yet

1992:

and others who never played professionally not notable? A recent AfD is trying to eliminate a page on a Collegiate Summer League team. What is the wikiproject's opinion on this? There are no notability guidelines here that address this. Seeing as there are dozens of pages on Collegiate Summer League

1433:

the guidelines, we wind up with a littany of cookie-cutter prose-free stub articles that make great cures for insomnia. But the authors can simply say "the sources are out there if you search for five minutes" and their bore-fest survives AFD. With the extra guidelines, at least we'd have fewer of

1402:

For what it's worth, I agree with Wickethewok. Establishing a checklist of arbitrary "Player X is presumably notable if he did this... or this... or this" standards is clearly a failed practice - that's why this discussion's taking place to begin with. For fringe cases like minor league all stars,

882:

Just for grins, I took the first person listed at MiLB.com on the 2007 All-Star team (Steve Bray, someone I hadn't heard of -- I was mildly surprised at how many I had heard of) and tried to find independent sources online for him. Lots of stat sites, a few blogs, a couple of passing mentions. Small

586:

Coming in late, BRMo's guidelines look sensible, and broadly consistent with the criteria used in the hockey and soccer Wikiprojects; that top level minor leaguers who put in some time are notable and that low level minor leaguers have to stand out in a big way. That being said, I wouldn't be quite

420:

Single-A-ball minor leaguers certainly aren't particularly notable, I've noticed. I tend to approach these things as an inclusionist, and the current guidelines are loose enough that they support hyper-inclusionism... but for the sake of forming a usable guideline, I agree it is time to tighten the

302:

that was the right course to take... I miss the mindset of those days. In the present Knowledge (XXG), it seems like people's first impulse is too often to throw away a flawed article (and all the work that went into it), rather than just doing a little research and fixing whatever sourcing or style

243:

I don't agree with Wknight's approach here.. because it would lead to the deletion of many major league player articles.. something no one wants I am sure... stub articles do have a purpose here with the assumption that eventually someone will improve them... BRMo's approach seems the correct one..

1758:

coverage". What constitutes "significant"? Just for clarity, should we include that here? Otherwise, people may attach one flimsy source to it, say it's independent and reliable and someone else will say it's not "significant" and then we have Battle of the Guidelines. Sorry, I'm a chess player

2033:

We (as a project) can't even agree on whether minor league players are notable. I'm a bit gunshy about stepping back into the notabilty quicksand any time soon. (Especially when confronted with assertions such as "nobody in this WikiProject really gives a crap") It's quite possible others feel the

1602:

independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.

1101:

and yet I still can't imagine who is going to care about him in 50 years. He probably pulled down a salary lower than mine while he played - looks like minimum wage at the AAA level is literally around 5% the MLB minimum. And now he's done. According to the one guy's personal site, he's just going

726:

As everyone here knows, just like in the majors, minor league rosters are ultra-fluid during the season with call-ups and send-downs. Some players spend one or two or more years with a single MiLB club, others spend a couple weeks in AAA then back to AA and then back up and so on. Heck, the "one

517:

Yeah, looks like you're right (my bad!). Still, the larger point stands: There isn't a developmental league for the NFL to correspond to a MLB team's farm system. I do see that there are articles for some players in the NBDL (the NBA's feeder system) who have articles without having ever played in

1383:

So do you think this will help expedite deletion discussions then? I'm just worried that AFDs and such would turn into debates as to whether these guidelines are applicable or if the subject is an exception to these guidelines. My concerns are basically that extra work is being put into writing

1364:

says that not everything covered in newspapers is notable, and consideration should also be given to the "historical notability" of the subject. In trying to balance these considerations in a fair manner, a number of WikiProjects, including those for several other sports, have found it useful to

1013:

Quick note on the obvious. If or when someone takes a stab at this guideline, please include a summary of this information, i.e. how they represent an assumption of the availability of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. It's good information for eternal skeptics like myself.

937:

All we had in California until 50 years ago was minor league so we had a lot of coverage out here even prior to 1930. The local public TV station did a show on baseball in Sacramento and showed a huge number of newspaper clippings going back to the 1800s on players and teams. I just assumed other

690:

Hopefully a discussion could come to some kind of consensus on that. Seems to me that we've been able to determine it for MLB players, so we should for MiLB players. Granted, MLB teams are in larger cities where resources are more widely available, but few newspapers in the late 19th / early 20th

2571:

I shouldn't have muddied the waters with the top prospect comment. What I'm really getting at is the fact that some people at AfD may use #2 to keep an article of any minor league player who has played with an MLB club at spring training, including the ones who have no chance of making the club.

1703:

has the looser standard that "independent sources could be found for the topic," it's not certain that poorly sourced articles would be deleted in AfD. Regarding Spanneraol's concern, in addition to grandfathering existing articles, I think it would also be reasonable to ask Wknight94 (and other

1617:

My reading of the discussion so far is that support seems to be coalescing for having the notability of minor league players depend on existence and use of reliable sources in the article, rather than on meeting particular thresholds. Are we ready to start talking about changing the criterion?

960:

established the first farm teams in about 1925 and they became increasingly important, but there were still a lot of independent minor league teams in the late 1940s and early 50s. Also, radio took off during this period, and fans throughout the MidWest could listen to Cardinals and Cubs games.

637:(semi-arbitrary break here) I'm very uncomfortable basing minor league notability guidelines on probability of making the majors. Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but it seems to me that the individual notability guidelines are a quick guide towards determining which articles are likely to meet 266:

does nothing but research baseball players. If they can't even find a birth certificate on someone or prove that the person even existed, how is anyone here going to expand on their article? If there's nothing to say about someone, there's nothing to say. Why are we forcing ourselves to write

221:

If you're talking about the player I think you're talking about, there weren't any sources available because news most news links go stale after several years. I remember reading about him when he was active, though, so there are print articles about him lurking in the stacks somewhere, and in a

922:

Unless I'm misunderstanding, I worry that Fabrictramp's idea breaks down the further back in time you go. I know my hometown's local newspaper barely had major league coverage (or obituaries for genealogy research) when you get earlier than 1930 or so. I can't imagine coverage of minor league

779:

is so irritatingly vague. (What exactly is a "fully professional league"? Is it a league where you get paid $ 1? Where you get paid at least minimum wage for the time you put in? Where you get paid what you'd make at a full-time year 'round minimum wage job? Where you could buy a house, raise a

1836:

If you read the full discussion above, you'll see that we couldn't reach consensus on any specific minor league playing requirements for notability (such as making an all star or playing at the AA level). However, there was consensus that significant coverage from independent reliable sources

1670:

My only concern here is that this will lead some people (WKnight for one) to dump a bunch of existing articles onto AFD with "not enough sourcing" notes... I'd prefer if we could identify the articles that need better sourcing and work to improve them first before going around deleting tons of

700:

One possible approach (not the only one, and probably not the best one, just the first one that comes to mind) is to arbitrarily pick a standard (say just for discussion all AAA players and AA All-Stars), take a random sample of modern players who meet that standard and are on teams near major

2336:

I think you have it backwards. The notable minor league players of today are having their articles appropriately kept because sources about them are easier to find, due to the internet. Many minor leaguers from the past have sources to demonstrate notability, but those are not always easily

1899:

The current notability guidelines say that a "commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager" in an affiliated minor league is deemed notable and that "minor league umpires are considered notable only if they have been elected to a league hall of fame or earned a similarly

1184:

Maybe what's eating at me is that people aren't expanding them. People seem to be creating minor leaguer articles just for the sake of creating them, using only stat sites and never expanding them unless they make the majors. In 10 years, we're going to be left with hundreds or thousands of

99:

On the other hand, I'd recommend dropping the all star team criterion for the lower minors, limiting it to Class AAA and AA (and possibly Class A). In addition, we need to be more specific about which All Star team we're talking about—I'd focus on the end-of-season teams that are featured on

67:

in 2000 has made the majors. This discussion led me to consider that objective factors that are strongly related to a player eventually making the majors may be a useful way to distinguish notable minor leaguers. For example, all star selections in higher minor league classifications may be

1073: 1069: 701:

metropolitan areas such as New York or San Francisco, and see how good the sources are in the online versions of those large papers. If many of them are turning up sources, it is probably safe to assume that similar small-market players will also have print sources that can be ferreted out.--

401:

The success rate of All-Stars from leagues below A-Ball reaching the majors is fairly low. If you want to draw the line based on indicators of potential future notability, that's probably be the place to draw it. I'm not sure that an outcome-based approach is necessarily the right way to go,

39:

Probably most of the discussion will focus on the sixth criterion, which specifically addresses minor league players. The current recommendation identifies minor leaguers as notable if they have accomplished one of the following: (a) played a whole season in AAA baseball; (b) played in the

184:

also be made to find out if sources exist. Sometimes that happens at AfD discussions, but more often the search is superficial. That's why I still support having WikiProject guidelines to help identify those players who are sufficiently notable that sources can safely be assumed to exist.

174:

I'm actually sympathetic to your argument. For the last year or so, I've not created any new articles until they were well sourced and beyond the stub stage. But if I understand what you're saying, your recommendation would go beyond baseball and require a change to Knowledge (XXG)'s core

79:

and a violation of CRYSTAL. However, it seems to me that using past experience of minor leaguers advancing to the majors to help us pick objective, observable achievements that can be used to establish notability does not violate CRYSTAL. We're not predicting that a particular player will

2292:

We've "reviwed" minor league notability many many different times. The project remains fairly split on the subject of minor league notability. The last discussion resulted in the compromise that players are notable if they have substantive articles about them rather than just stats sites.

606:

In a pretty broad sense, I agree there as well, though the Cube lists are incomplete and not entirely reliable, so I'd prefer external sourcing (either in an annual guide or a newspaper article), and I'd draw the line on All-Stars right under A-ball (trimming short-season, rookie ball, and

202:

he played? Would we need different guidelines for pre-2000 minor leaguers because there is almost no on-line coverage of such players? Then we'd need to do something similar for major leaguers. If we can't even find a date of birth for a player, it's probably safe to assume that MLB and

2307:

I don't mean to be blunt, but that is a very dumb way to determine notability. As I stated, an equally accomplished player from the 1980s will not have an article as a player from today, because the 1980s player did not have the Internet to give the false impression of notability. Look at

1601:

Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that a minor league player, manager, coach, executive, or umpire is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually

1462:

I'd love to see better article sourcing, too, but if you delete a badly-sourced article on a notable topic, all you're doing is ensuring that no one will ever source it. That's something that's going to need to come from a larger site-wide movement, rather than just WikiProject Baseball.

617:

Ravenswing, I'm coming to the realization that I don't want to get rid of minor leaguer articles, just the shitty ones. You're right that sportswriters constantly write about every level of minor leaguer - and yet it's shocking how few of those write-ups make it into articles here.

2465:

I'm not aware of any reliable source (such as the databases at mlb.com, baseball-reference.com, etc.) that treats players who've played spring training games with an MLB team as having major league experience, so I'd say no, spring training or other exhibition games don't count.

2094:, which says, "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Knowledge (XXG) article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Of course, if there is a lot of material from multiple sources (e.g., 1704:

members of the project) to place notability tags on an article a week or two before nominating for deletion and to limit the number of AfD nominations made at one time, thereby allowing editors who are interested in saving the articles time to add sourcing. Is this agreeable?

297:

to a perfectly fine and functional article. Now, there are a few players from the 1880s and such about whom very little is known, even after research by SABR... but what harm is done by letting people have access to all the information that IS available? You once

1821:

I'm not seeing the support (or the desirability) to remove all minor league all-stars or full season AAA players from the guidelines. There is discussion about removing all-stars below AA, which may make sense, but removing the other from this bullet does not.

1140:. The number of people who will be interested in Baker in the future may be limited... but I bet it's not zero, and there's no real downside for us in filling their need for information on him. Even if it's just one guy a year who sees Baker's name in the 2224:

Our guideline says that notability of minor league players is established by citing reliable sources. My impression is that first round draft picks tend to generate quite a bit of coverage from reliable sources, so they will usually meet that criterion.

645:, avoiding a series of deletions and recreations of articles that will eventually be shown to be notable. Players who have played in a single MLB game are notable because it is highly likely that coverage exists in the sports sections of many newspapers, 338:

We can't control what is available on other sites, only what's available on this one. Sean Forman could have a stroke and die tomorrow, or become a Luddite and let the domain go fallow, and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Plus, thanks to

2357:

a while ago, but it was kept as one editor mentioned that there was some coverage of him. But please, even though there has been some coverage, I don't see what makes him notable for our purposes. I still don't see it and want to go for the AfD.

2051:, they are notable no matter what a specific guideline says. To me, the specific guidelines are shortcuts for helping us to assume a high chance of sources existing that would pass GNG. But I know from recent AfDs that not everyone feels this way.-- 1275:

says the burden of sourcing lies with the author and that unverified material can be removed. In many cases, such removal would result in an empty article and empty articles are immediate speedy deletions. But that logic doesn't work here. Maybe

2277:

I agree. I've nominated some career minor leaguers for deletion but had their pages saved because there was "coverage" of them, but little more than records of their playing. Minor league baseball is professional, but not the most advanced form.

1167:, and someone cares enough to take the time to write an article (or even a good stub) about him, what's the harm? Anyways, in 50 years, we'll be on to some other technology that will make Knowledge (XXG) look like scratches on a rock. *grin*-- 303:

or NPOV issues it may have. If it's not perfect right now, screw anyone who'd benefit from an imperfect, transitional version. Get it out of here! Someone else can always waste a bunch of time re-inventing it later. (But now I'm rambling...) -

2420:; if a player has played at least one spring training game at the MLB level, does he meet the guideline? Unless the wording specifically excludes spring training or other exhibition games, it would seem that the player meets the standard. 956:

fans in Minneapolis followed the Millers, fans in San Francisco followed the Seals, and fans in Detroit followed the Tigers. If the city was big enough to have a daily newspaper with sports pages, it covered its minor league team. Then

1403:

it is entirely reasonable to expect normal sourcing standards to apply without trying to identify a singular default presumption. (And this is coming from someone who vigorously upheld the existing default presumption at AfD last week.)

378:

Of course, but I don't see this falling afoul of either of those. It's a biographical entry, not a list of stats, and it's not indiscriminate, since it'd fall within whatever set of notability guidelines we ultimately determine here.

1585:

Have played in at least a whole season in AAA baseball, played in the All-Star Futures Game, won a notable Minor League Baseball award, or been selected for any minor league baseball All-star game in the affiliated minor

482:

The situation with the NFL isn't necessarily analogous, though, since there aren't any minor leagues affiliated with it. College football is the main feeder system to the NFL, and we have eleventy-hojillion articles in

565:

explicitly, since they aren't members of a fully professional league. Minor league baseball players (and NBDL basketball players) are, in contrast, full-time professionals who are affiliated with a professional team.

591:

will get rid of all those pesky minor leaguer articles. The capacity of sportswriters for feature articles on the fellows playing for the hometown ballclub is limitless, and those fulfill WP:V in every particular.

1806:

I take it a priori that athletes who have played at a fully professional level are automatically noteworthy, including those in the minor leagues. If sourcing is an problem, then that is already covered by WP:V.

560:

developmental league is pretty significant. College players are unpaid amateurs with no connection to any specific professional franchise (until they are drafted/signed after leaving school). As such, they fail

675:

Sounds like a plan but how are you going to determine that? Folks are saying that the reliable independent sources are locked away in local newspapers and magazines that only a percentage of libraries carry.

2321:

of him brings up 8,380 hits. It's not because he is notable, it is because he played during a time when minor league coverage expanded greatly on the Internet, and the Internet expanded greatly as a whole.

1348:, other Knowledge (XXG) guidelines also need to be considered. For example, most former minor league players who never made it tot he majors are not public figures; they are people living ordinary lives. 123:

and determine if you can write a real article based on significant coverage by independent reliable sources. If so, it's in - otherwise, it's out. If that means deleting major league articles, so be it.

1866:

Last year the change in the minor league guideline to focus on using reliable sources was vetted and agreed upon on this page, and then the main Baseball WikiProject was notified and invited to comment

1076:'s another), both of which could be added to his article if someone were so inclined. Plus several years' worth of writeups in annual BA guides, of course. And whatever else people want to pull from 1596:

Minor league umpires are considered notable only if they have been elected to a league hall of fame or earned a similarly extraordinary honor, or if they have accomplished some historic achievement.

324:, not after it's been tagged for cleanup for a year and finally brought up for deletion. And hey, that AFD you mentioned was from 2006. I was so young and innocent then, and I needed the money. — 48: 775:

I really hope we can come to a consensus on the guideline, because we'll continue to have contentious AfDs otherwise. And even if there is a consensus, we may still have contentious AfDs because

2209:

Question: Is a player chosen in the first round of an MLB Draft notable regardless of any other factors (signed or not, eventual major league player or not)? I would lean towards saying yes. --

1653:

A couple of weeks ago I would have argued against this, but after this discussion I have to agree with how you've put it. Unless someone comes up with a better proposal, I could go for this.--

2090:

and cover the player as part of the article on the team. (Actually, UCSC doesn't have a baseball team, but I love their school mascot.) I think this approach is in line with the policy of

1870:. Five days later, after no opposition was expressed, the change was made. That process pretty much followed the book on how changes in Knowledge (XXG) guidelines are supposed to be made. 2608:. I've gone ahead and made that change. Of course, this talk page is still valuable because it documents the discussion that went into developing the baseball portion of the guideline. 198:

I'm not sure how everyone would ever agree to the "safely be assumed to exist" part. In my most recent search for a 2000 A-level all-star, I found absolutely nothing. Is it because of

289:

Articles on obscure, old-time major league players often expand much better than you'd think, if you're willing to put in a little bit of work. I heard that argument during the AFD for

1932:

All looks good to me except the 200 games bar for olde-tyme umpires... not sure why we'd make that exception. Otherwise everything looks well-considered and professionally composed!

1246:. If I could be granted just one wish to improve Knowledge (XXG), it would be that every editor suddenly take proper sourcing seriously. Ain't gonna happen, but I can dream. *grin* -- 1778:

be a defensible exclusion given that every player in the minors has a career stats page of this type, whether it's eventually copied somewhere independent of their team page or not.

1559: 1988:

Is it the opinion of this wikiproject that collegiate baseball is not notable? There is nothing in the notability guidelines concerning collegiate baseball at all. Are people like

2187:

I feel that the leagues are notable but the individual teams are not... the league pages are sparse as they are... adding info about the teams to those pages seems to make sense.

92:(these lists have considerable overlap, so I don't see a problem with allowing players who've been named to any of the lists); or (c) being selected as a first-round draft pick. 2442: 347:, EVERYTHING here is ripped (or at least gently borrowed) from somewhere else. Why should it matter that the info for that stub came from there, instead of somewhere else? - 531:, and you'll find few (if any) Knowledge (XXG) bios on current college players which don't meet the wp:bio requirement of substantial coverage in reliable sources. -- 2604:

has been accepted as a guideline. The baseball section of the new guideline is based on what we developed here, so it seems best to have this page now redirect to

1539: 843:

I couldn't tell you outside of my MLB teams who made the MLB All-Star team this year. That's more a function of my busy life and bad memory than notability. ;-)--

1294:

If that's your objection, then yeah, probably. I don't expect it to change (it's pretty close to project core values), but you're certainly welcome to try. -

1608:

Articles that are not sourced to published material providing significant coverage of the subject (not just statistics sites) may be nominated for deletion.

2313: 2318: 2143:

are sorely lacking sources. I'll see if I can scare any up, but I won't have a lot of time the next several days. Anything you can add would be great.--

1352:

addresses the importance of ensuring that the content in articles about living people is verified in reliable sources and protects their privacy, while

299: 2162:

I've now added a handful of sources to those two articles, which I hope would be enough to stave off any AfD attempts. The rest of the leagues in the

1509: 80:

eventually make the majors; we're simply saying that his accomplishments are similar to those of past minor leaguers who have made it to the majors.

44:; (c) won a notable Minor League Baseball award; or (d) been selected for any minor league baseball all-star game in the affiliated minor leagues. 1195:, and no one is going to bother expanding them. But I suppose that's more of a systemic problem and applies to areas all over Knowledge (XXG). — 1322:"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." ( 407: 68:

strongly related to reaching the majors, but for low level leagues like rookie leagues, all stars aren't necessarily likely to reach the majors.

2087: 96:

Thus, all of these are criteria that are objective, easily observable, and helpful in identifying players who are likely to make the majors.

17: 1384:(and then reading/re-reading/revising) these guidelines, when this time would be better spent researching subjects on an individual basis. 403: 2163: 2136: 1532: 1077: 1543: 780:

family, and not depend on a spouse's income? Where at least one player, but not every player, meets the wage standard chosen? Yikes.)--

156:

Forget Google hits - I'm starting to lean towards determining whether there is significant coverage from reliable independent sources

1084:, and it seems unwise to me for us to adopt a standard that's significantly tighter than the one applied to the project as a whole. - 267:

articles on such people? Like I stated (much) earlier, there's nothing wrong with putting such people in a list article. Per the

262:

The problem is there are a lot of major league player articles that aren't improvable (is that a word?). That's what I'm saying -

76: 2140: 538: 503: 468: 2605: 2601: 1122:) hinted at seemed like a good one - unless you can find something interesting to write about the guy, don't bother. Hmmmm... — 1592:

and have worked in at least one postseason or All-Star Game; umpires of the 19th century must have worked in at least 200 games

1119: 1513: 293:, a one-game player from 1907, and guess what? Using only a really coarse and shoddy bit of online research, we were able to 1577:

Have served as a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager in one of the above-mentioned leagues

1064:), though he wasn't called up to the majors. With about five minutes of looking, I found full-length profiles of Baker in 71:

The comment was made that trying to identify minor leaguers who are likely to advance to the majors may be a violation of

1524: 75:. If I were to subjectively select prospects who I think have a high probability of reaching the majors, that would be 1636: 1634: 965:

never lasted a full season in Class AAA, but there are lots of reliable sources, so he obviously satisfies notability.

484: 2480:

I'd agree with that.. lots of minor leaguers appear in spring training games that have no chance of making the club..

1528: 361: 421:

standard. My gut says to handle this like the NFL does - the only indicator of "presumptive notability" should be

1837:(beyond just statistics sites) should be required. Of course, you're welcome to reopen the discussion if you like. 2327: 2267: 2502:

got a spring training at bat with the Yankees in 2008. That does not make him a professional baseball player. --

1357: 1144:

article, and wonders who he is, then we're still providing something of value. And there's really no downside. -

1618:

Above is my first stab at drafting something along those lines. Please feel free to suggest edits or changes.

1555: 1464: 1295: 1145: 1085: 1065: 608: 567: 519: 488: 411: 380: 348: 304: 223: 52: 797:

That's why the guidelines specified at least one year of AAA ball rather than just an appearance in one game.

222:

brief check of my bookshelf at home I did manage to find a capsule analysis of him in an old scouting guide. -

1242:", I was assuming someone had added a couple of quality sources to the article that demonstrate how he meets 2125: 2013: 1998: 1189: 883:

sample size, but it seems to shoot down my theory that AAA All-Star is a good indicator of notability. :( --

2617: 2587: 2566: 2551: 2511: 2489: 2475: 2460: 2435: 2397: 2382: 2367: 2346: 2331: 2302: 2287: 2271: 2248: 2234: 2218: 2196: 2178: 2155: 2129: 2107: 2063: 2017: 2002: 1969: 1955: 1941: 1927: 1909: 1879: 1861: 1846: 1831: 1816: 1787: 1768: 1745: 1731: 1713: 1699:

I've added a footnote warning that poorly sourced articles may be nominated for deletion. Of course, since

1694: 1680: 1665: 1647: 1467: 1453: 1412: 1393: 1374: 1335: 1298: 1289: 1258: 1204: 1179: 1148: 1131: 1088: 1050: 1023: 1007: 974: 950: 932: 895: 855: 838: 806: 792: 736: 713: 685: 669: 627: 611: 600: 570: 547: 522: 512: 491: 477: 452: 434: 414: 383: 373: 351: 333: 307: 284: 253: 226: 216: 193: 169: 151: 133: 109: 2309: 1057: 1630: 2173: 2150: 2058: 1660: 1563: 1520: 1389: 1331: 1253: 1174: 1080:, since I got bored after about 5 pages. He pretty clearly meets the general notability requirements of 1056:

In addition to the numerous honors you note, and his participation in a major deadline trade, Baker was

945: 890: 850: 787: 708: 664: 56: 41: 32: 1719: 2562: 2485: 2378: 2323: 2298: 2263: 2192: 1946:

I just deleted the specific details at the end of the criteria for major league umpires. Is that ok?

1676: 802: 543: 508: 473: 249: 1213:

and you'll think those minor leaguer articles are gems. At least with the stat site link, they meet

776: 562: 410:

may be helpful, as both a sense for why the current guideline is what it is, and how we got there. -

72: 2354: 1923: 1808: 1764: 1727: 1690: 1449: 1285: 1200: 1127: 1113: 1046: 1019: 928: 681: 623: 448: 369: 329: 280: 212: 165: 129: 64: 2580: 2544: 2507: 2453: 2428: 2363: 2283: 2244: 2214: 2121: 2009: 1994: 1965: 1937: 1812: 1783: 1741: 1408: 834: 732: 430: 275:, the standards for inclusion in a list article are much lower than having a separate article. — 1353: 1108:-ism). I'm tying to get down with this concept but it's leaving a real bad taste. The tact that 119:

on the subject which essentially advocates abolishing these guidelines altogether. Stick with

2393: 2342: 2095: 1857: 1827: 1571: 2418:

Has appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: MLB, etc.

1323: 115:

I haven't read this and it's almost time to pack it in tonight but I encourage folks to read

2528: 2167: 2144: 2120:

well. I feel that they are notable and have become much more so over the past twenty years.

2081: 2052: 1654: 1438: 1385: 1327: 1247: 1168: 995: 939: 884: 844: 781: 702: 658: 2091: 2048: 1718:

Sounds good to me. Let's see what other people think. Maybe move the little RFC tag from

1626: 1502: 1361: 1349: 1268: 1210: 1137: 755: 654: 642: 357: 344: 272: 139: 120: 2558: 2557:

I don't think adding that language is necessary. Those "top prospects" are covered by #7.

2524: 2481: 2374: 2294: 2188: 1672: 962: 798: 593: 533: 498: 463: 245: 1774: 1271:?) that says a lack of sources is not a good reason for deletion. To me, it should be. 2613: 2471: 2230: 2103: 2008:

I guess there was nothing here because nobody in this WikiProject really gives a crap.

1989: 1951: 1919: 1905: 1875: 1842: 1760: 1723: 1709: 1686: 1643: 1567: 1551: 1445: 1370: 1281: 1196: 1123: 1109: 1042: 1015: 1003: 970: 924: 677: 619: 444: 365: 325: 316:

when articles are expanded, even if an AFD is required to make it happen. But look at

276: 208: 189: 161: 147: 125: 105: 60: 1751: 1700: 1622: 1621:

What do you think? This standard should be compatible with the general guidelines in

1345: 1272: 1264: 1243: 1239: 1214: 1164: 1098: 1081: 1061: 638: 588: 340: 180: 176: 2573: 2537: 2503: 2499: 2446: 2421: 2359: 2279: 2240: 2210: 1961: 1933: 1779: 1737: 1519:

Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues:

1404: 957: 830: 728: 426: 2389: 2338: 1853: 1823: 1547: 1360:

argues against using Knowledge (XXG) like a database and mass producing articles.

527:

I disagree. The larger point does not stand. The developmental league for the NFL

496:

I looked through a couple of them, and they all made it eventually to the NFL. --

1141: 518:

the NBA, which would seem to correspond fairly closely to our situation here. -

1104: 1038: 1031: 2609: 2467: 2226: 2099: 1947: 1901: 1871: 1838: 1705: 1639: 1538:

Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues:

1434:

the useless BaseballCube data-dump articles. I'd love to see an end to the

1366: 999: 966: 290: 185: 143: 101: 1633:

site alone, including a couple of articles that specifically focus on him (

1993:

teams, it seems as though this may be an area that needs to be addressed.

1852:

or AAA all-stars, or significant AAA players would be able to meet that.

1590:

Have served as a Major League Baseball umpire on a regular league staff

2388:

of the past were less notable than equivalent minor leaguers of today.

2166:

probably need to be looked at, too, but the real world is calling me.--

100:

baseballcube.com, since they are based on the full season performance.

1097:

Yeah, I figured but I still keep waffling. I had no doubt that he met

1960:

Works perfectly for me, hopefully will for others as well - thanks -

1102:

into regular business life like the rest of us shnooks (to borrow a

1356:

recommends not creating biographies of people noted for one event.

2416:

What is the feeling on spring training regarding the criterion:

263: 204: 1037:

Okay, I'm perusing minor league player articles and ran across

55:

observed that most of the all stars selected from the Class A

587:

so sanguine in WKnight's shoes that a strict application of

2088:

University of California, Santa Cruz Banana Slugs baseball

2312:. He won nearly 300 games in the minor leagues and yet a 2239:

That seems to be a good way to think about it, thanks. --

2047:

My personal feeling is that if someone/something passes

1868: 1759:(hence the username) - just trying to think ahead... — 607:

MLB-affiliated foreign leagues like the DSL and VSL). -

458: 317: 294: 116: 2443:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Edward Campusano

1560:

National Association of Professional Base Ball Players

758:

is notable, even if he doesn't meet these guidelines).

2022:

My two cents, which you are perfectly free to ignore:

86:

Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus, Sporting News,

1280:

the issue I should really be pushing - somewhere. —

633:

Is probability of making the majors the right focus?

1894:

Another issue - minor league management and umpires

1263:

Well, maybe my issue is with the wording wherever (

423:

one box score appearance with the Major League club

138:Separate guidelines shouldn't be incompatible with 1508:Are a member of a major Hall of Fame, such as the 1136:To me, that seems like a textbook application for 443:I agree pretty much wholeheartedly with Townlake. 63:responded that only one of the all stars from the 47:What is the rationale for these criteria? In the 1163:I guess I'm a bit more inclusionist. If he meets 2353:I'd like to bring up a specific case. I PROD'd 1540:All-American Girls Professional Baseball League 1494:Baseball figures are considered notable if they 2098:), then a separate article may be warranted. 8: 2606:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (sports)#Baseball 923:players would be too easy to find either. — 59:in 2000 have subsequently made the majors. 1750:I guess we're still left with the issue of 1185:double-A player articles, all tagged with 552:Well, in my mind the difference between a 408:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (athletes) 1773:Good point. Wouldn't a reference to the 1510:National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Baseball 1421:I guess that would be my preference too 1062:on the Padres' 40-man roster before that 404:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (sports) 27:Proposal to review notability guidelines 2441:PS: This is relevant to a current AfD, 1535:or any other top-level foreign league. 49:Fort Myers Miracle players discussion 7: 2164:National Alliance of Summer Baseball 2137:Great Lakes Summer Collegiate League 1533:Chinese Professional Baseball League 1501:Meet the notability requirements of 1238:Of course, when I said "if he meets 2602:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (sports) 2521:Have appeared in at least one game 2518:making an addition to #2 such as: 1505:, as well as one of the following: 1429:those sources! As a result, even 1060:as recently as two years ago (and 24: 2257:Minor Leaguer Notability Concerns 485:Category:College football players 2141:Florida Collegiate Summer League 1484:Is a consensus starting to form? 318:the article before the expansion 2533:in any one of the following... 1880:22:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC) 1862:22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC) 1847:22:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC) 1832:15:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC) 1514:Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame 1317:What makes baseball different? 1: 2596:WP:NSPORTS is now a guideline 2398:14:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 2383:02:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 2368:18:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC) 2347:14:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 2332:18:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC) 2303:16:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) 2288:19:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC) 2272:18:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC) 1736:I like it. Nice work, guys. 938:towns would have info, too.-- 2588:00:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2567:22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 2552:21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 2512:18:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 2490:16:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 2476:12:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 2461:07:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 2436:07:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 1525:Nippon Professional Baseball 1058:on the Braves' 40-man roster 2412:Does spring training count? 1970:22:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC) 1956:22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC) 1942:17:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 1579:or affiliated minor leagues 1529:Korea Baseball Organization 556:developmental league and a 2633: 1928:03:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 1910:22:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 1817:06:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 1788:15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 1769:15:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 1746:14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 1732:11:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 1714:11:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 1695:01:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 1681:00:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 1666:23:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 1648:23:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 1468:15:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 1454:15:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 1413:14:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 1394:14:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 1375:04:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 1336:03:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 1299:15:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 1290:13:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 1259:13:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 1205:11:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 1180:15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 1149:15:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 1132:14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 1089:14:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 1051:04:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 1024:02:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 1008:01:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 975:01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 951:00:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 933:23:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 896:00:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 856:00:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 839:23:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 807:23:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 793:22:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 737:21:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 714:20:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 686:19:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 670:19:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 628:15:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 612:15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 601:23:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 571:13:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 548:20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 523:18:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 513:18:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 492:18:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 478:18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 453:18:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 435:17:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 415:16:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 384:15:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 374:19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 352:18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 334:18:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 308:16:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 285:13:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 254:13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 227:19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 217:05:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 194:04:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 179:guidelines. For example, 170:04:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 152:04:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 134:04:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 110:03:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2618:13:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 1209:Spend a few days over at 1072:(which has run several - 2249:20:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 2235:21:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 2219:13:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 2197:18:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 2179:18:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 2156:17:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 2130:17:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 2108:04:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 2064:00:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 2018:00:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 2003:14:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC) 1556:Japanese Baseball League 158:in the article right now 53:User:Hit bull, win steak 2205:First round draft picks 2080:I generally agree with 1918:Sounds good to me. — 1521:Major League Baseball 754:any player who meets 57:South Atlantic League 42:All-Star Futures Game 2536:Any other thoughts? 1544:American Association 2135:At the very least, 1671:existing articles. 1564:Negro Major Leagues 1465:Hit bull, win steak 1296:Hit bull, win steak 1146:Hit bull, win steak 1086:Hit bull, win steak 609:Hit bull, win steak 568:Hit bull, win steak 520:Hit bull, win steak 489:Hit bull, win steak 412:Hit bull, win steak 381:Hit bull, win steak 349:Hit bull, win steak 305:Hit bull, win steak 224:Hit bull, win steak 65:Arizona Fall League 1078:his 430 GNews hits 90:Sports Illustrated 2584: 2548: 2457: 2432: 2096:Stephen Strasburg 1572:Union Association 647:The Sporting News 77:original research 2624: 2585: 2582: 2578: 2549: 2546: 2542: 2529:exhibition games 2458: 2455: 2451: 2433: 2430: 2426: 2176: 2170: 2153: 2147: 2084: 2061: 2055: 1984:College Baseball 1663: 1657: 1489:Draft guidelines 1443: 1437: 1256: 1250: 1194: 1188: 1177: 1171: 1070:The Boston Globe 948: 942: 893: 887: 853: 847: 790: 784: 711: 705: 667: 661: 651:Baseball America 597: 541: 536: 506: 501: 471: 466: 362:INDISCRIMINATEly 2632: 2631: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2600:I noticed that 2598: 2581: 2574: 2545: 2538: 2525:spring training 2523:(not including 2454: 2447: 2429: 2422: 2414: 2259: 2207: 2174: 2168: 2151: 2145: 2082: 2059: 2053: 1986: 1896: 1661: 1655: 1631:Washington Post 1615: 1491: 1486: 1441: 1435: 1358:WP:NOTDIRECTORY 1344:In addition to 1319: 1254: 1248: 1192: 1186: 1175: 1169: 1035: 963:Steve Dalkowski 946: 940: 891: 885: 851: 845: 788: 782: 709: 703: 665: 659: 653:, etc, meeting 635: 595: 539: 534: 504: 499: 469: 464: 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2630: 2628: 2597: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2515: 2514: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2413: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2258: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2206: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2182: 2181: 2159: 2158: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 1990:Gary Henderson 1985: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1913: 1912: 1895: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1614: 1611: 1605: 1604: 1598: 1588: 1582: 1575: 1568:Players League 1552:Federal League 1536: 1517: 1506: 1498: 1497: 1495: 1490: 1487: 1485: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1457: 1456: 1416: 1415: 1397: 1396: 1378: 1377: 1339: 1338: 1318: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1190:primarysources 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1092: 1091: 1034: 1028: 1027: 1026: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 719: 718: 717: 716: 695: 694: 693: 692: 634: 631: 615: 614: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 480: 455: 438: 437: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 257: 256: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 233: 232: 231: 230: 229: 117:my latest post 61:User:Wknight94 31:From watching 28: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2629: 2620: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2595: 2589: 2586: 2579: 2577: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2550: 2543: 2541: 2534: 2532: 2530: 2526: 2519: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2500:Billy Crystal 2497: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2459: 2452: 2450: 2444: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2434: 2427: 2425: 2419: 2411: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2356: 2355:Lou Palmisano 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2320: 2319:Google search 2315: 2314:Google search 2311: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2256: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2204: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2180: 2177: 2171: 2165: 2161: 2160: 2157: 2154: 2148: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2122:Kinston eagle 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2065: 2062: 2056: 2050: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2010:Kinston eagle 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1995:Kinston eagle 1991: 1983: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1898: 1897: 1893: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1805: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1776: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1702: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1664: 1658: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1619: 1612: 1610: 1609: 1603: 1599: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1587: 1583: 1580: 1576: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1504: 1500: 1499: 1496: 1493: 1492: 1488: 1483: 1469: 1466: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1440: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1300: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1257: 1251: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1191: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1178: 1172: 1166: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1150: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1118: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1106: 1100: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 994:Returning to 976: 972: 968: 964: 959: 958:Branch Rickey 954: 953: 952: 949: 943: 936: 935: 934: 930: 926: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 897: 894: 888: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 857: 854: 848: 842: 841: 840: 836: 832: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 808: 804: 800: 796: 795: 794: 791: 785: 778: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 757: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 738: 734: 730: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 715: 712: 706: 699: 698: 697: 696: 689: 688: 687: 683: 679: 674: 673: 672: 671: 668: 662: 656: 652: 648: 644: 640: 632: 630: 629: 625: 621: 613: 610: 605: 604: 603: 602: 599: 598: 590: 572: 569: 564: 559: 555: 551: 550: 549: 546: 545: 542: 537: 530: 526: 525: 524: 521: 516: 515: 514: 511: 510: 507: 502: 495: 494: 493: 490: 486: 481: 479: 476: 475: 472: 467: 460: 456: 454: 450: 446: 442: 441: 440: 439: 436: 432: 428: 424: 419: 418: 417: 416: 413: 409: 405: 385: 382: 377: 376: 375: 371: 367: 363: 359: 355: 354: 353: 350: 346: 342: 337: 336: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 310: 309: 306: 301: 296: 292: 288: 287: 286: 282: 278: 274: 270: 265: 261: 260: 259: 258: 255: 251: 247: 242: 241: 228: 225: 220: 219: 218: 214: 210: 206: 201: 197: 196: 195: 191: 187: 182: 178: 173: 172: 171: 167: 163: 159: 155: 154: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 136: 135: 131: 127: 122: 118: 114: 113: 112: 111: 107: 103: 97: 93: 91: 87: 81: 78: 74: 69: 66: 62: 58: 54: 50: 45: 43: 37: 34: 26: 19: 2599: 2575: 2539: 2535: 2522: 2520: 2516: 2448: 2423: 2417: 2415: 2260: 2208: 2118: 1987: 1755: 1620: 1616: 1607: 1606: 1600: 1595: 1591: 1584: 1578: 1548:Cuban League 1430: 1426: 1422: 1277: 1138:WP:NOT#PAPER 1116: 1103: 1036: 1030:Case study: 993: 650: 646: 636: 616: 594: 585: 557: 553: 544:(yada, yada) 532: 528: 509:(yada, yada) 497: 474:(yada, yada) 462: 422: 400: 321: 313: 268: 199: 157: 98: 94: 89: 85: 82: 70: 46: 38: 30: 2498:I say no. 2310:Jackie Reid 2169:Fabrictramp 2146:Fabrictramp 2083:Fabrictramp 2054:Fabrictramp 1756:significant 1722:to here? — 1656:Fabrictramp 1427:incorporate 1386:Wickethewok 1362:WP:NOT#NEWS 1328:Wickethewok 1249:Fabrictramp 1170:Fabrictramp 1142:Alan Embree 996:Fabrictramp 941:Fabrictramp 886:Fabrictramp 846:Fabrictramp 783:Fabrictramp 704:Fabrictramp 660:Fabrictramp 596:Ravenswing 2559:Spanneraol 2482:Spanneraol 2375:Spanneraol 2295:Spanneraol 2189:Spanneraol 2175:talk to me 2152:talk to me 2060:talk to me 1673:Spanneraol 1662:talk to me 1613:Discussion 1255:talk to me 1176:talk to me 1105:Goodfellas 1039:Brad Baker 1032:Brad Baker 947:talk to me 892:talk to me 852:talk to me 799:Spanneraol 789:talk to me 777:WP:ATHLETE 710:talk to me 666:talk to me 563:WP:ATHLETE 529:is college 246:Spanneraol 73:WP:CRYSTAL 2527:or other 2034:same way. 1920:Wknight94 1761:Wknight94 1724:Wknight94 1687:Wknight94 1446:Wknight94 1282:Wknight94 1197:Wknight94 1124:Wknight94 1110:Mackensen 1066:USA Today 1043:Wknight94 1016:Wknight94 925:Wknight94 678:Wknight94 620:Wknight94 445:matt91486 366:Wknight94 358:NOT STATS 326:Wknight94 295:expand it 291:Ed McLane 277:Wknight94 209:Wknight94 162:Wknight94 126:Wknight94 88:ESPN, or 2576:Wine Guy 2540:Wine Guy 2504:Muboshgu 2449:Wine Guy 2424:Wine Guy 2360:Muboshgu 2280:Muboshgu 2241:Muboshgu 2211:Muboshgu 1962:Townlake 1934:Townlake 1809:AfD hero 1780:Townlake 1738:Townlake 1586:leagues. 1405:Townlake 1354:WP:BLP1E 1120:contribs 831:Townlake 729:Townlake 554:de facto 427:Townlake 360:and not 271:line of 2390:Rlendog 2339:Rlendog 1854:Rlendog 1824:Rlendog 1512:or the 1444:days. — 1439:sofixit 1324:WP:NOTE 558:de jure 312:Hey, I 300:thought 2092:WP:BLP 2049:WP:GNG 1720:WT:MLB 1627:WP:BIO 1503:WP:BIO 1423:except 1350:WP:BLP 1278:that's 1269:WP:AFD 1211:WP:DEP 756:WP:BIO 655:WP:BIO 643:WP:BIO 540:crewer 505:crewer 470:crewer 345:WP:NOR 273:WP:BIO 269:second 140:WP:BIO 121:WP:BIO 1775:WP:RS 487:... - 459:ditto 322:first 16:< 2614:talk 2610:BRMo 2583:Talk 2563:talk 2547:Talk 2508:talk 2486:talk 2472:talk 2468:BRMo 2456:Talk 2431:Talk 2394:talk 2379:talk 2364:talk 2343:talk 2328:talk 2324:Alex 2299:talk 2284:talk 2268:talk 2264:Alex 2245:talk 2231:talk 2227:BRMo 2215:talk 2193:talk 2139:and 2126:talk 2104:talk 2100:BRMo 2014:talk 1999:talk 1966:talk 1952:talk 1948:BRMo 1938:talk 1924:talk 1906:talk 1902:BRMo 1876:talk 1872:BRMo 1858:talk 1843:talk 1839:BRMo 1828:talk 1813:talk 1784:talk 1765:talk 1754:'s " 1752:WP:N 1742:talk 1728:talk 1710:talk 1706:BRMo 1701:WP:N 1691:talk 1677:talk 1644:talk 1640:BRMo 1625:and 1623:WP:N 1450:talk 1431:with 1409:talk 1390:talk 1371:talk 1367:BRMo 1346:WP:N 1332:talk 1286:talk 1273:WP:V 1265:WP:N 1244:WP:N 1240:WP:N 1217:. :) 1215:WP:V 1201:talk 1165:WP:N 1128:talk 1114:talk 1099:WP:N 1082:WP:N 1074:here 1068:and 1047:talk 1020:talk 1004:talk 1000:BRMo 971:talk 967:BRMo 929:talk 835:talk 803:talk 733:talk 682:talk 639:WP:N 624:talk 589:WP:V 535:brew 500:brew 465:brew 461:. -- 457:(ec) 449:talk 431:talk 406:and 370:talk 364:. — 356:But 343:and 341:WP:V 330:talk 314:love 281:talk 264:SABR 250:talk 213:talk 205:SABR 200:when 190:talk 186:BRMo 181:WP:N 177:WP:N 166:talk 148:talk 144:BRMo 130:talk 106:talk 102:BRMo 1638:). 1267:or 641:or 33:AfD 2616:) 2565:) 2510:) 2488:) 2474:) 2445:. 2396:) 2381:) 2366:) 2358:-- 2345:) 2330:) 2317:a 2301:) 2286:) 2278:-- 2270:) 2247:) 2233:) 2217:) 2195:) 2172:| 2149:| 2128:) 2106:) 2057:| 2016:) 2001:) 1968:) 1954:) 1940:) 1926:) 1908:) 1878:) 1860:) 1845:) 1830:) 1815:) 1786:) 1767:) 1744:) 1730:) 1712:) 1693:) 1679:) 1659:| 1646:) 1594:. 1570:, 1566:, 1562:, 1558:, 1554:, 1550:, 1546:, 1542:, 1531:, 1527:, 1523:, 1452:) 1442:}} 1436:{{ 1411:) 1392:) 1373:) 1334:) 1288:) 1252:| 1203:) 1193:}} 1187:{{ 1173:| 1130:) 1049:) 1022:) 1006:) 973:) 944:| 931:) 889:| 849:| 837:) 805:) 786:| 735:) 707:| 684:) 663:| 649:, 626:) 451:) 433:) 372:) 332:) 283:) 252:) 215:) 192:) 168:) 150:) 132:) 108:) 51:, 2612:( 2561:( 2531:) 2506:( 2484:( 2470:( 2392:( 2377:( 2362:( 2341:( 2326:( 2297:( 2282:( 2266:( 2243:( 2229:( 2213:( 2191:( 2124:( 2102:( 2012:( 1997:( 1964:( 1950:( 1936:( 1922:( 1904:( 1874:( 1856:( 1841:( 1826:( 1811:( 1782:( 1763:( 1740:( 1726:( 1708:( 1689:( 1675:( 1642:( 1581:. 1574:. 1516:. 1463:- 1448:( 1407:( 1388:( 1369:( 1330:( 1284:( 1199:( 1126:( 1117:· 1112:( 1045:( 1018:( 1014:— 1002:( 969:( 927:( 833:( 801:( 731:( 680:( 676:— 622:( 618:— 566:- 447:( 429:( 379:- 368:( 328:( 279:( 248:( 211:( 188:( 164:( 146:( 128:( 124:— 104:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:WikiProject Baseball/Notability - Knowledge (XXG)

Index