- 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 delete. The "keep" !voters have not shown the coverage to be significant. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Buck Elliott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article fails WP:BASEBALL/N. Scouts are not classified as passing these guidelines, and the article's creator has made no further assertion of notability to satisfy WP:GNG from any reliable sources. AFD started after prod was declined. Author requested AFD instead of addressing prod, and I complied. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 03:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 03:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm actually going to go with keep on this one for now. Though we shouldn't really use Google News results as an indicator of notability, there are 337 "Buck Elliott" results in the Google Archives. I'll skim over them later to see if I can uncover anything that mentions him in depth. Alex (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Alexsautographs (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep—tis true that the article doesn't make the case for his notability, but as we read in WP:BEFORE esp D3, this is not a reason for deletion. there are sources attesting to elliott's notability: here and here and here and here and here too, and even a couple of mentions in the nyt, which i can't link to from here. seems to me to meet gng, let alone wp:ath. what the article creator has failed to do is irrelevant. (note to Alex: many of those ghits are for another buck elliot who played in the 20's. i've picked out the best ones about this guy from the first three pages of gnews hits, but there were many pages to go).— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More than happy to withdraw (*edit* nevermind, the references above are trivial, routine, or passing mentions only) as long as someone actually adds the references to the article and we're not instead brought here yet again after zero improvement just like Jack Mealey. Author of the article requested this be brought to AFD, and I complied. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 03:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, hold the phone. I assumed that you had provided me sound references since you went through that whole speech about policy and that's irrelevant and so on, but really these references are pretty bad. Please don't throw WP:BEFORE in my face and then give me an articles that only tell me A) He got 'suspended' for a week in the minors for working too hard B) WP:ROUTINE, WP:Run-of-the-mill coverage and C) passing mentions. I'm all for keeping articles that are notable, and my requirements aren't that much, but being condescending about WP:BEFORE and then giving me these articles as 'proof' that he passes WP:GNG is pretty bad. You say these were the best, so my outlook on this article's WP:POTENTIAL is not good at all. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 03:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I though Eepfleche did a great job improving the Jack Mealey article. Alex (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, he did. During the 2nd nomination. You made no improvements between the end of your 1st nomination and the start of the 2nd to delete your own article, a 2 year gap where you could have easily made the necessary improvements yourself instead of bringing it back to AFD so that everyone else could do what should've been your job to begin with, as covered at Wikipedia:Your first article. The references from the Pittsburgh Press and books were found easily through google and would have been more than enough to avoid both AFDs to Mealey. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 03:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- is this really why this article is here? perhaps everyone should read WP:NOTCLEANUP as well as WP:BEFORE, esp part that reads In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. perhaps nominator will withdraw?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. There is a problem with this article clearly failing WP:BASEBALL/N not cleanup, and adequate sources have not been found to establish notability. You made a big speech earlier, and it almost fooled me, but almost all of those references you gave are just bad. Only one article was partly decent, but I'm not about to declare a person notable because he got 'suspended' for a week for overworking. We might as well just throw WP:GNG right out the window if that's how far we've fallen in requirements. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 03:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- is this really why this article is here? perhaps everyone should read WP:NOTCLEANUP as well as WP:BEFORE, esp part that reads In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. perhaps nominator will withdraw?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, he did. During the 2nd nomination. You made no improvements between the end of your 1st nomination and the start of the 2nd to delete your own article, a 2 year gap where you could have easily made the necessary improvements yourself instead of bringing it back to AFD so that everyone else could do what should've been your job to begin with, as covered at Wikipedia:Your first article. The references from the Pittsburgh Press and books were found easily through google and would have been more than enough to avoid both AFDs to Mealey. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 03:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Most of these links seem pretty trivial. The 4th is arguably significant coverage, although not great, and the 1st may be a smidge more than trivial (though not in my opinion). Rlendog (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the word I was looking for. "This man got suspended from baseball for a week because he was, quote, 'overworking'" - "Who is Buck Elliott?" - "You've won the Daily Double!" Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 04:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- see, now the discussion is actually about what it ought to be about; whether the sources indicate notability. you think they don't, i think they do. it's a useful conversation. your nomination and subsequent comments show that you didn't check, but just threw it out here so other people would clean it up. that doesn't seem like a good way to go about cleaning up an article. anyway, i'm sorry if i offended you and i certainly didn't mean to throw anything in your face. i'll shut up now and let people discuss whether the existing sources, and hopefully not just the best i found from the first three pages, demonstrate notability.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More than happy to withdraw (*edit* nevermind, the references above are trivial, routine, or passing mentions only) as long as someone actually adds the references to the article and we're not instead brought here yet again after zero improvement just like Jack Mealey. Author of the article requested this be brought to AFD, and I complied. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 03:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Vodello. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails GNG, without multiple sources of significant coverage. Also note that an article shouldnt cite other wikis like the SABR one as they are not reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, couldn't find any non-trivial sources that indicates notability Secret account 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.