Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Ahearn

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, as both the interpretations of WP:BIO here are arguably valid, and neither has any overwhelming majority support. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Ahearn

fails WP:BIO as baseball in the 1880s was not "fully professional", and this player in question only played one game, and nothing of note happened. A search for ("Charlie Ahearn" baseball 1880) gets less than 200 ghits [1]. Had a prod tag on it for several days, before removed by radical inclusionist editor. There is just no need for these "athletes" who played one game, when many who have had full careers don't even have articles. Tony fanta 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Personal attack aside, I removed the prod because he meets WP:BIO as a professional athlete (which is true), and this can be verified via Baseball Reference, among other publications. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• (I always wanted to be a radical something.) Weak keep. My baseball knowledge is spotty, but this name seems awfully familiar to me. I think he's more notable than the article is letting on. Wouldn't take much to convince me otherwise, though. --Aaron 17:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but not because he played in 1880. Many 1880's players could be notable. A guy who played 1-game in the majors, even in 2006, would be non notable. His entry at the canonical Baseball Almanac shows a) he lived and b) played one game. No other information is availible. Not notable, not verifiable, not worthy of WikiPedia. --Jayron32 00:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability is typically gleaned from the consensus guideline WP:BIO, which he does meet. Meanwhile, you've shown the verifiability. So what's this about? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • reply OK Then. Lets open up WP:BIO and read the relevent sections aloud, shall we?
      • 1) "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. " A 1-game appearance does not a widely recognized contribution make.
      • 2) From the section on sports athletes. Everyone reads the first sentance (which mentions that Professional Athletes competing at the highest level are notable) but ignores the rest of the guideline: "Third party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criteria—as performing at the highest level." Again, the terms widely recognized and performing at the highest level don't apply to someone who appeared in 1 game.

Which brings us to the relevent points to be made regarding this AFD: a) Participation is not contribution. b) Cursory documentation of a name is not wide recognition. All we can verify about this guy is that he was alive and he appeared in a professional baseball game. Neither by itself is enough to pin a WikiPedia article on. --Jayron32 02:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

False on all counts in that final paragraph. Not much else to say, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Unsure about this one. I'm of the opinion that all pro athletes should get an article, though whether a one-game run in 1880 counts as "pro" is the big question. For all we know, he might have been just some random guy asked to fill in for a day while somebody was out sick or something. Witholding vote for now in case anyone has more information, but I'd say I'm probably leaning toward weak delete. It's also worth noting that there's a far, far , far more well-known person by the same name, who directed the very important music documentary film Wild Style and had a book published not long ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply Every pro (fill in the blank) is not automatically deserving of an article. Wide recognition of notable contributions to your field should be the baseline requirement. As I mention above, participation is not contribution. ALL subjects should have their notibility verified on a case-by-case basis. No single category of subjects should be offhand unworthy of inclusion, likewise, no single category of subjects should be offhand worthy of inclusion. --Jayron32 02:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I'd hope this were moved over to Charlie Ahearn (baseball player) when this is kept to make room for the other guy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• WP:V issues is my main concern, he only played one game in 1880, in a time that they rarely listed players, and most players who played in only one or two games in that era is only known by their last name, which is an obvious problem and who knows if that's acually his first name and how baseball reference got that info. Unless there is more info avalible that isn't one of those websites, Delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How about CNN/SI? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • They likely got it from the baseball reference, doesn't give much info Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It doesn't really need much more at this point, it's a stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Still not any more information. Look, many people are verifiable as people. Many professionals are verifiable as professionals. You could find a website that listed me as a teacher working at the school I last worked at. You can verify I was born; when I graduated high school; when I graduated college; taxes I have paid. Lots of things are verifiable as part of the public record. That does NOT make them notable. Simply confirmation of my existance and my job does not make me notable. Does anyone review Ahearn's play? Are there any contemporary or historical records that tell us what he was like as a ball player; what the press thought of him; what fans thought of him? The fact that he existed and played baseball falls below minimum notability baseline. 4 at bats is well below the meaningful statistical threshhold to even extrapolate on his effectiveness as a player by a mere statistical analysis. There is no way to establish this guy's notability. --Jayron32 02:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • But you're not a professional athlete. If you don't like WP:BIO, try and change it, but there isn't any consensus for such a move. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
        • You know something, I am tired of you being a wet blanket over this discussion. Why don't you just let us discuss this like human beings and not nitpick around when someone makes a perfectly valid argument? Tony fanta 16:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks for your input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Could someone explain to me how he meets WP:BIO? JoshuaZ 20:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Professional athlete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that's just what one person thinks. Simply being a professional athlete alone doesn't assure that WP:BIO is met, that's the conflict in this afd. It also should be noted that the American and National leagues merged to form the MLB in 1903, if that helps matters any. Tony fanta 21:34, 13 October 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.