Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clint Everts

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. There are strong, policy-based arguments on both sides. Several editors feel that Everts has "sufficiently significant" coverage to meet the general notability guideline, while other editors disagree that he meets GNG, and note that he fails baseball-specific notability guidelines. Regardless of the off-topic arguments as to creating players on first-round draft choices, there is no distinguishing argument on either side that tips the proverbial scale, and as such, I find there is no consensus for deletion at this time, but also no unequivocal consensus to keep. Go Phightins! 18:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Everts

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable baseball player. Never made it to majors, nothing in career particularly outstanding that would pass GNG. Wizardman 12:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be enough to keep (I'm undecided at the moment) but it's important to note that there is some coverage: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] – Muboshgu (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll say keep. After looking through it, I think it's just enough to pass. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fringe GNG, but being the fifth overall pick and a top 100 prospect numerous times makes him notable for me.--Yankees10 16:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – career minor leaguer and fading prospect is not notable enough to meet GNG. Could always resurrect the article in the future, in the unlikely event he makes it to MLB. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass per Muboshgu and Yankees10. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor league players are not generally considered notable unless they have some unusual notability beyond the typical coverage of their careers. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. People like this are why I don't like the practice of automatically creating articles for first round draft picks.. This guy became a career minor leaguer who is now playing in the independent leagues... will never make the Majors and has done nothing especially notable in the minors. Sources cited above are all routine coverage that minor leaguers tend to get from industry press. Spanneraol (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Minor leaguers aren't automatically presumed to be notable as Major Leaguers are, but if they have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG they are as notable as anyone else who meets that criteria. Rlendog (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL. Only coverage is local and/or routine sports reporting. Nothing to meet GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in Baseball America is hardly "routine." Not many people get a write up like that in a publication like that. And CBS is hardly local and he gets a full paragraph devoted to him in that link. And the "local" coverage encompasses Houston to Denver to Fredricksburg to New Jersey and New York. Rlendog (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2014 (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.