Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Skinny Graham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. John254 03:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arthur Skinny Graham
Delete It appears that he played only a handful of games for the Red Sox (from a Blog, so not a WP:RS) - Notability not established Mayalld (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
He played many and his son for the boston patriots. I'll get the information from cooperstown. Plumpworth (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep I managed to dig up his career stats: [1] which proves the guy existed and that he played for the Red Sox in the 1930s. Still, we really need more than that for an article. Per WP:BIO, though, he was a real professional athlete, so we should keep the article. That said, if no sources better than the stats page are found in (say) six months, I'd say delete. Mangojuicetalk 16:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Provisionalkeep. Satisfies WP:BIO for athletes as competing on the highest level. Source found and added confirming he played for the Red Sox 1934-1935. But, I want to double check article for copyvio. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If the nominator knew anything of the eligibility rules he'd know that if someone plays even one game of major league baseball he's notable and that a player of the 1930s is as notable as one of today. Taking an article to AfD six minutes after creation is also extremely bad form. Nick mallory (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment Our notability guidelines generally require substance, not triviality. I don't believe that somebody who played a mere handful of gsmes can be said to have "competed in a fully professional league". It requires more than a trivial number of appearances for that. As to the time elapsed before nominating for deletion, the nomination is on a basis of a lack of notability. The facts are not in dispute (that he played a very few games), so what purpose would be served by waiting Mayalld (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- You might not think that a handful of games qualifies a player but wikipedia policy and precedent holds that it does. There is no arbitrary number for 'trivial' appearances precisely to prevent pointless discussions like this. Nick mallory (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- It appears to me that WP:BIO is less than explicit on this point. It doesn't state that a trivial excursion into a professional league doesn't count, and it doesn't say that it does count. Clearly there is a need for greater clarity on this issue (one way or the other) to avoid confusion. As to precedent, always a tricky one, WP:CCC and it would be far better if "precedent" was replaced by clearer guidelines. Anyway, I've said enough. I personally don't believe that he is notable due to the trivial nature of his career. If others agree, all well and good. If others disagree, likewise. Mayalld (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BIO is crystal clear on the matter. It says that 'Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league' are notable, I don't see any ambiguity there at all. There's no cut off in terms of the numbers of games played, there's no qualifier about what might be 'trivial', it's absolutely clear that your nomination is simply against established policy, which is why it'll fail. Nick mallory (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I fully accept that it is crystal clear to you. However, I believe that in the absence of an explicit statement that even a trivial participation at that level counts, there must be a degree of de-minimis. I will seek to clarify the policy (whether in favour of my position on this AfD or otherwise) in the near future. Mayalld (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that in this case, the guy played for two seasons in the major leagues, but also presumably participated more significantly at the minor league level, which is still a fully professional league. None of this is to say we should keep the article if it can't meet WP:V but it's hard to make the argument that sources don't exist: we may just not have found them yet. Mangojuicetalk 06:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is not a function of time of tenure and a whole season in the big leagues is hardly trivial. The general idea of presumed notability by other criteria is that such people don't come out of thin air. RS coverage is probably out there and will likely be found eventually. That's good enough for a stub. In Arthur Skinny Graham's case, the basics are proven and the interesting details need sources. • Gene93k (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I fully accept that it is crystal clear to you. However, I believe that in the absence of an explicit statement that even a trivial participation at that level counts, there must be a degree of de-minimis. I will seek to clarify the policy (whether in favour of my position on this AfD or otherwise) in the near future. Mayalld (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BIO is crystal clear on the matter. It says that 'Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league' are notable, I don't see any ambiguity there at all. There's no cut off in terms of the numbers of games played, there's no qualifier about what might be 'trivial', it's absolutely clear that your nomination is simply against established policy, which is why it'll fail. Nick mallory (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- It appears to me that WP:BIO is less than explicit on this point. It doesn't state that a trivial excursion into a professional league doesn't count, and it doesn't say that it does count. Clearly there is a need for greater clarity on this issue (one way or the other) to avoid confusion. As to precedent, always a tricky one, WP:CCC and it would be far better if "precedent" was replaced by clearer guidelines. Anyway, I've said enough. I personally don't believe that he is notable due to the trivial nature of his career. If others agree, all well and good. If others disagree, likewise. Mayalld (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:BIO. Policy and Precedent are that if you play in the majors, you're notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:BIO on notability of professional athletes who have competed at the highest level of their sport. This appears to be another drive-by AfD created within minutes of the article's creation. The nomination appears to violate the nominator's obligations under Wikipedia:Deletion policy to research claims of notability, and then edit, expand or merge the article to improve it. Alansohn (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2008 (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.
