Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Hollowell

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 (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Hollowell

Delete - MLB umpire only for relatively brief period; worked no postseason or All-Star games, no significant regular season games. Hard to imagine the article ever being anything but a stub. (Also note that the article is an orphan.) (Article was previously marked for deletion by Seidenstud, tag was removed by another user.) MisfitToys 20:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Leave the page - Five seasons seems significant to me. Players who have played few games/years are on this website. I'm not sure why the bias against umpires exists on this site. They work hard and make a contribution to baseball just like players and coaches. Ags412 20:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Ags412

Well, what about substitute umpires who are never on the regular staff but merely fill in during vacations or strikes? This is a really slippery slope. I'll note that all of the other post-1890 umpires with articles worked postseason (and usually All-Star) games. MisfitToys 20:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - worked at the highest level = notable. BoojiBoy 21:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Another point: There are fewer than 75 umpires that work MLB games in a year, but over 800 players, almost all of whom have pages on this site. In fact, being a major league umpire is a tougher accomplishment than being a major league player. Obviously players are more in the spotlight while umpires often go unnoticed, but this should not prevent them from having a page on this site. But it seems to me that if such a select group of people can accomplish something as difficult as becoming a major league umpire, if even for a short period of time, then that person deserves to be recognized on this website. Ags412 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the numerical comparison is entirely useful. Anywhere between 18 and 50 players appear in each game (sometimes even more in September), but only 4 umpires; there are fewer positions. Besides, shouldn't the article describe something the person did rather than just note their job title? Since you began the article, adding something in that respect would be useful. Players' accomplishments are easily quantifiable and varied and can be compared; umpires' work tends to be more uniform. The Wikipedia bio guidelines should be kept in mind; for sports officials, I'd suggest something similar to the criteria for professors (Ivy League profs could be regarded as working at the highest level, yet they don't automatically qualify for articles). MisfitToys 21:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The numerical comparison is relevent because it shows how much more difficult a position being an MLB umpire is to obtain as compared to being an MLB player. My point with that is that MLB players who appear in very few seasons and have "stubs" are not shut out from this site, so why should an MLB umpire be? Additionally, if you want more than his job, give it some time. This page has been up for less than 24 hours. Part of the reason it was put up is so anyone who knows something can contribute. Give them time to find it. Ags412 22:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, veteran umpires have union job protection, so talent isn't the only criteria for work; a pitcher who's no longer competent loses his job, but it's harder to get rid of a bad umpire who's been around for ten years. Besides, the uniformity of their work is a primary goal for umpires; uniformity is completely irrelevant (and essentially impossible) for players. MisfitToys 22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Which means it is even tougher to get a job in the major leagues because there are less openings. Therefore, breaking into the major leagues as an umpire for any amount of time is an extremely difficult feat in any respects and thus a "notable" accomlpishment.Ags412 22:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I would personally draw a comparison here with UK Premiership football referees, and they tend to have WP articles - here's a stubby example of one. --DaveG12345 05:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. With few execptions (e.g. John Hirschbeck), American sports officials are quite intentionally fairly anonymous. I can't imagine what could be added to the article to make it more than a stub. I can't speak for soccer people, but soccer refs might be different because the relative subjectivity of that sport makes officials more important and better known. -- Mwalcoff 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I'm not one to use a quasi-Pokémon test defense, but I see no reason why there are articles on players that barely made the bigs, but an ump that spent four years in the pros would fail notability guidelines. I don't buy either argument that it's easier/harder for players or umps to make the show--apples and oranges, people. Mwalcoff is right that relative anonymity makes it difficult to expand this article, and due to the nature of the pasttime most sources deal only with publicized mistakes, ejections and whathaveyou. I've added a bit of new info, too. -- Scientizzle 20:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As MisfitToys suggested, the umpire situation should be approached similar to that of college professors - working on the highest level is not enough, on its own, to constitute notability. As it stands now, the career highlights listed on Hollowell's article do not make him notable, as he was not really a part of them; he was really more of a bystander. The batboy and the equipment managers scheduled to work those games were as much a part of Darren Kile's death and the crazed fan incident, as Hollowell was. The fact that Hollowell was a part of these games is trivia, by definition, unimportant. Also, I should point out that the numerical comparisons between umpires and players are moot by the simple reason that there is far, far less competition for umpire jobs. That is not to say very little competition, but the fact remains that countless children, young adults, and college-age kids, throughout the Americas work extremely hard to try to fulfill their dreams of playing in the major leagues. Despite any arguments made to the importance and skill of the umpire, this is simply not the case for aspiring umpires. Besides, most of the arguments equating MLB umpire status with notability (competition, job openings, etc) can really be made for MLB batboys and MLB bullpen catchers. This is a slippery slope being mounted here. Without real notable, consequential facts about a particular umpire's career, there is no article. -Seidenstud 22:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 11 July 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.