Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Masterson

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator after article clean-up and references added. Metros (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Masterson

Justin Masterson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This subject doesn't seem to be notable based on WP:BIO's standards for athletes and the baseball Wikiproject's standards of inclusion. He has never played at the AAA level of the minor leagues nor has he appeared in any all-star game nor is he on the Red Sox's 40-man roster . Metros (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn now that sources have been found; article has shown notability per standards since this AFD opened. Metros (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The article does not state that he has played in an All-star game or has played in the AAA anywhere. He was invited to go to spring trianing, that is why he is on Red Sox template.--RyRy5 Got something to say? 21:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know he hasn't been. This is why he fails the standards. Metros (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
      • But this article has been here for over a month and has been checked already by an admin. There are many more articles like these that hav been around for over a year.--RyRy5 Got something to say? 21:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
        • See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because there are other articles doesn't necessarily mean that those articles should be here too. Metros (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
        • While you're there, you might want to read all of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It explains why you shouldn't vote "per nom" like was brought up to you recently. It also will provide other things to avoid because your rationale to keep it contains a few of the no-no's. Metros (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, admins have neither the job nor the power to ok articles. --Yooden ☮
Actually, while he may well not be considered notable, it won't be because he fails WP:ATHLETE. "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league ..." - that's what he's doing right now, and what he did last year, and for part of the year before. The requirement to have competed at the highest level applies to amateur athletes, not professionals. Mlaffs (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: The standard for WP:BIO requires that a person has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, and Masterson meets that standard. The standard for WP:ATHLETE requires that a person has played in a professional league which Masterson has done. One of the standards for notability by WP:BASEBALL standards is selection to a minor league all star team. He has met that. What specific standard is this person not meeting? Kinston eagle (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kinston. This are tiny nuances that can be overlooked. The whole concept of bio and such is to keep people whom have done pretty much nothing towards their own notability. Masterson is a touted prospect and the subject of works, been to the majors, etc. Nothing here that really merits deletion like a independent league guy. Yanksox (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep also per Kinston. After reading his/her comment, I see really no reason to delete the article.--Ryan (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kinston eagle. --Borgardetalk 06:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, may fail WP:ATHLETE, but meets WP:BIO. BTW–Go Yankees. MrPrada (talk) 07:38, 14 April 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.