Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Drennen

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 of the debate was DELETE —Whouk (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Drennen

Just some random guy in A-ball who happened to hit a homerun off of Roger Clemens during a rehab start. Mr. Clemens has been pitching a long time, and there is no one else on wikipedia just because he gave up a homer to him. Also, to those who might argue that there is something significant about an A level player getting a homerun off of a sure Hall of Famer, it is worth noting that even the best of pitchers give up many homeruns in their careers and even the worst hitters in baseball hit homeruns off of the best pitchers sometimes (after all, pitchers hit homeruns occasionally). Not only will this guy not be remembered in ten years even in baseball circles unless he adds a few more accolades to his resume, he will not be remembered in ten months. Was prodded, but the tag was removed. Indrian 14:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom. Not notable outside Mr Drennen's immediate family (who will be hearing about it for years) -- GWO
• Delete. nn at this time. First round draft pick, may be in the majors in five years, may be selling cars. It would take a crystal ball to know which. For now, he's just a guy who got a dinger in a Class A game, and that doesn't do it. Fan1967 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If a hall of famer is pitching an A level game as a rehab assignment, it is because their current capability is roughly A level. Sports news authors hype everything. This just isn't encyclopedic content unless we make crystal ball level assumptions. GRBerry 23:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An incredibly deceptive nom, that ignores that Mr. Drennen was a first round draft pick at 18 by the Indians and will most likely get callled up. In his short time in the minors, the man homered off Clemens (in his first return to the major leagues), probably the greatest pitcher who ever lived. Drennen's hit made national news, with every major paper commenting. This is no random guy and no random story. I wonder to what extent the nom understands the dynamics of the story. I object to the false projection ten years down the road, at which point Drennan is entirely likely to have made his mark in the majors. I would encourage participants to read and expand the article. --JJay 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• What part of "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" was unclear to you? Hint: projections about what a great ballplayer this guy could be -- no matter how many excitable adjectives you slather on - are still projections. And an "incredibly deceptive nom"? Please. --Calton | Talk 01:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your remarks civil Calton, you have been warned many times before. TruthCrusader 09:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, grow up. The semi-competent nanny act is getting old. --Calton | Talk 10:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I take my cue and respond to the nomination- to be precise the speculation regarding Mr. Drennan ten months down the road. I suggest you do the same before throwing out thoughtless comments. --JJay 02:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. JJay, please see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.---CH 01:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strange that the nom's crysal ballism comment doesn't bother you: Not only will this guy not be remembered in ten years even in baseball circles, he will not be remembered in ten months.... I'm sorry, but if I was a betting man, I would say that a first round pick, a teenager, who homers off Clemens, is in fact more than likely to be remembered in both ten months and ten years. --JJay 01:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strange indeed -- but since it's not the reason for the nomination nor of the slightest relevance to it, one wonders why you bring it up. --Calton | Talk 01:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply responding to the remark that was directly addressed to me. I would encourage you to try to follow the flow of the coversation before commenting. Of course, when the delete voters cease their arm waving, and explain why an obscure minor league player gets these kind of google hits [1], or google news hits [2], I would be more than pleased. --JJay 01:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• You do have a valid point, and I have clarified my comment above, but Calton is correct that you are missing the point of the arguement for deletion. Furthermore, there have been quite a few #1 pick busts in the history of the draft, including quite a few that never made it to the Major Leagues. Indrian 01:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no real argument for deletion. A first-round draft pick, a pro-baseball player, who smokes a living legend, qualifies for inclusion at every level. I also think your offhand comment about the prod is offensive. The prod was removed and the article was massively expanded (something you forgot to mention). --JJay 01:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

follow the flow of the coversation before commenting. Which I did, and do -- and your "I know you are, but what am *I*" rhetoric still remains as meaningless whether you were responding to a specific comment or whether it burst out as a non sequitor. You, on the other hand, DO seem to have a basic problem with following the basic flow converstion, given your continued ignoring of WP i not a crystal ball. If you sneer enough, you think you no one will notice?

There is no real argument for deletion Other than all the ones that have been brought up which you keep pretending don't exist, no. --Calton | Talk 10:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

you may want to read WP:NOT before accusing other people of ignoring it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have -- and given your well-known tendency to mistake an encyclopedia for the telephone directory and make vague handwaving gestures at policy in general, you're not one to lecture me on understanding policy. --Calton | Talk 04:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you sneer enough, you think you no one will notice- Civility really isn't one of your strong suits, is it? For your information, I'm not sneering, merely trying to save a good article. And the only reason given for deletion is speculation regarding whether Mr. Drennen will be "remembered" in ten years. No policy reasons have been given. And no one has answered my question regarding google and news hits. --JJay 18:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Civility really isn't one of your strong suits, is it? I don't respond well to obvious snow jobs: responding to the actual arguments actually made doesn't seem to be your strong suit, so maybe that makes us even. WP not a crystal ball? Ring a bell? --Calton | Talk 03:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't respond well to anyone who "votes" keep anywhere on AfD. Reread WP:CIV and abide by it, or stop addressing comments/accusations to me and other users. Thank you. --JJay 10:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I do admit that this article fits into a strange nether region that defies categorization in WP:BIO and leads to reasonable arguements on both sides for keeping based on an interpretation of that guideline alone. Vis-á-vis athletes, the guideline indicates that professioal athletes should be allowed in, and minor leaguers are certainly paid for their efforts, but other categories in Bio such as top athletes in non-professional sports and top athletes in college sports imply that the level of selectivity is slightly different. Baseball is unique among the major American sports in that there is an extended farm system that develops talent rather than teams just relying on high schools and colleges to develop players for them. WP:BIO goes on to discuss how first team squad members (not a baseball concept I know) that have not appeared for the first team may merit an entry, and this implies that lower level team members do not. By analogy, minor leaguers are the equivalent of the reserve team, and therefore WP:BIO strongly implies they don't belong. I acknowledge that the policy can be interpreted either way and that mine own is merely an opinion on how it should be read and only consensus can dictate how each case will be handled. I hope you can acknowledge the same about your views.

That long-winded explanation deals only with why minor leaguers in general do not belong and does not answer your question relating to this specific person. According to my interpretation above, this person would have to have done something highly unusual or special to merit inclusion. Being a sandwhich round draft pick (not quite a number one) is not enough in my eyes because his value is not yet known. If he goes on to be a Major League regular, then he will certainly merit an article, but he may flop and be forgotten like many picks (even #1 picks) before him. That leaves the homerun, which is the main (probably only) reason this article was written as is readily apparent by the content of the article, which focuses nearly exclusively on this event. A home run is just not too important an event in the grand scheme of things, many thousands having been hit in baseball history from its inception. Sure, there have been notable homerun feats like Reggie Jackson in 1978, Bill Mazeroski in 1960, Joe Cater in 1993, and even Bo Jackson in 1989, but this particular home run did not reach those lofty heights of importance, and none of those players have an article solely because they hit those homeruns. Roger Clemens has given up 347 home runs in his major league career alone, and this was just one more. While he may be the best pitcher of all time, that does not make him immune to homeruns. Even the best pitcher may give up a home run to the worst hitter on any given day, whether through luck, skill, or a temporary lapse in judgment. Any player could have hit a homerun off Clemens that day, it just so happens Drennen was the guy to do it. It does not make him special or notable. As for the press coverage, this speaks more to the hype surrounding Clemens than to any special achievement on Drennen's part. Any major sporting event is going to be covered by every news agency on the planet, and day in and day out the plays of certain players will be discussed. A third-string catcher on a last place Major League team who allows a passed ball that costs his team a win will be featured in media outlets across the country (particularly if it is a New York team), but if the game was not important to the team's overall performance that year, the incident will quickly be forgotten and the article on that player will not mention the incident regardless of how much media coverage was generated. The same situation exists here. While I believe your interpretation of WP:BIO is valid (even though I do not agree with it), I have yet to see you explain what makes this homerun special, or any more noteworthy than the 347+ other homeruns Clemens has given up in his career.

I know this is a long post, but you requested a more detailed explanation, and I indulged you. I would certainly be interested in hearing your response, but I hope you can keep in mind the difference between a valid arguement and one with which you merely disagree with. Indrian 19:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. That was a very good answer. There is little I think that I need to say now that I haven't already said. As you surmised, my reading of WP:BIO is that all pro athletes qualify for inclusion. Therefore, I would be inclined to keep the Drennen article regardless. I also don't see any reason why we wouldn't want articles on all the top draft picks- meaning well beyond the top ten. That's the kind of information I would hope a major on-line reference work could provide. The fact that the Clemens minor-league game was greatly hyped, televised nationally and covered by newspapers coast-to-coast (NY Times, USA Today etc [3],[4] - with Drennen's homer drawing extensive commentary and feature articles the next day [5], [6],[7]- makes the Drennen article especially interesting. In my view, it is the kind of story that people tend to remember and one that certainly bears inclusion here. --JJay 21:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A hitter who got lucky, a rehabbing pitcher on a bad day, the second coming of Mickey Mantle, whatever: it's a single event, a few inches of wire-service copy in the back of the paper, and whether Drennen someday becomes another Willie Mays, another [[Crash Davis] -- or just a footnote in Roger Clemens's memoirs -- is pure speculation, no matter how much you jump up and down and wave your arms. --Calton | Talk 01:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:BIO. Would likely be kept anyway as a notable first round pick. The Clemens footnote alone is enough for inclusion regardless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment He was picked 33rd in the first round. Care to see if there are articles on any of the 32 who went before him? Fan1967 04:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Or, for that matter, who deserve them? --Calton | Talk 10:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure they all do. If the 32 don't have articles yet, they should. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, this guy wasn't first round, he was a "sandwich round" pick. With 30 teams, there are 30 players in the first round. Looks like twelve of the 30 have articles, but only two after the top ten picks, and one of those two, Hansen, actually played in the majors. (The asterisks are where Wikipedia has someone else of the same name): 1 Justin Upton, 2 Alex Gordon, 3 Jeff Clement, 4 Ryan Zimmerman, 5 Ryan Braun, 6 Ricardo Romero, 7 Troy Tulowitzki, 8 Wade Townsend, 9 Michael Pelfrey, 10 Cameron Maybin, 11 Andrew McCutchen, 12 Jay Bruce, 13 Brandon Snyder, 14 Trevor Crowe, 15 Lance Broadway, 16 Christopher Volstad, 17 Carl Henry *, 18 Cesar Carrillo, 19 John Mayberry *, 20 Mark Pawelek, 21 Clifton Pennington, 22 Aaron Thompson, 23 Jacoby Ellsbury, 24 Brian Bogusevic, 25 Matthew Albidrez-Garza, 26 Craig Hansen, 27 Joseph Devine *, 28 Colby Rasmus, 29 Jacob Marceaux, 30 James Greene. Fan1967 14:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I guess I have some articles to write tonight, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete based on Fan1967's thorough research above. --Satori Son 16:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan1967 and nom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Please see the talk section for the more established Kinston Indians players articles that I created and everyone so quickly dismissed... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Barton. Good luck getting articles for Low A class players (Lake County Captains) considering that the articles for advanced A players (or in some cases even AA palyers like Armando Camacaro and Scott Rohel) that I created werent even allowed Nick22aku 18:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Nick22aku
• Delete - non-notable minor leaguer --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinston Indians. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and recreate if/when he plays in Major League Baseball or otherwise meets WP:BIO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As he meets WP:BIO now, does that mean this can be interpreted as a keep? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • • Maybe just as soon as you explain how, as oppose to hand-waving. --Calton | Talk 03:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Reading the guidelines helps. See below. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Just as soon as he's out of the reserves and plays for the first team (i.e. just one game in major league will do), then he'll meet WP:BIO for sportspeople rather than your idiosyncratic interpretation of it. If he does something else notable, non-baseball, that meets WP:BIO, then that too will do. But he hasn't yet established his notability either through baseball or any other field. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • All I'm saying is, at the moment, my reading of the wording of WP:BIO, rather than anything idiosyncratic, shows that he meets it in at least two variables. If your vote isn't contingent on WP:BIO after all, then it'd be different story. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Do you plan on letting us know which variables, or is this another of your faith-based votes? --Calton | Talk 03:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Easy: "portspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league" and "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." I certainly don't have to point these out to you, as you claim to not need a lecture above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:17, 27 June 2006 (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.