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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Red Sox minor league players[edit]

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

Unnecessary fan cruft. An ever-changing list of players that is just as easily had on their respective team pages as needed. A partial list of random players throughout an entire professional baseball organization isn't needed. Jmlk 1 7 05:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. These pages are being maintained by the baseball project and are intended to provide summaries of the more notable prospects within each major league organization. The respective team pages are way too long to contain this information. Spanneraol (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep These articles are (mostly) well sourced, well maintained by the project, and provide information about top prospects who are not presently deserving of their own pages, a subject of great importance to baseball fans. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spanneraol and Muboshgu. Reso lute 14:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the baseball projects way of avoiding the issue of having too many stubs about lesser professional players. Seems useful to me, even if I would rather they be seperate articles. Definitely should not be included on the team pages as the team pages have no room for such information. -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Analogous to the way we treat elementary schools, biographical content of minor league players should be relegated to broad pages like this. Whereas individually these players are not "notable" in Wikipedia terms, collectively they are. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is trivial, almost ridiculously so. They have no coverage or mention in reliable sources...hell, not even the example given in #7 at WP:MLB/N passes article muster. What this appears to be is an end-around to get Wikipedia coverage for non-notable athletes. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of these players has coverage in reliable sources and the subject of the Red Sox minor league system certainly has plenty of coverage. Not trivial at all. Spanneraol (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Draft profiles and minorleague highlight reels are not reliable sources. Unless you're hitting the hype of a Stephen Strasburg, you're not article-worthy minor-leaguer. And I don't buy, or see any support for, the notion that minor league players as a collective is a notable topic. A History of the Boston Red Sox farm system may be, sure, but that's not the same thing. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are you suggesting that sports related papers/websites that cover minor league baseball are not reliable? Do you have some evidence that such sites have less than accurate reporting? We aren't arguing that these players are worthy of independent articles, but as a collective they are notable as has been established by consensus. Your opinion seems to be in the minority here. Spanneraol (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a collective the subject is notable. We've used these articles to keep from cluttering Wikipedia with individual articles on minor league prospects, and now that article is up for deletion. No. Not today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodello (talk • contribs)
Keep I'm not an expert on how atheletes are covered on Wikipedia, but I would much, much rather see a collected articles on minor-players than individual articles in such cases. I wish this would be done more often with minor athletes where only basic stats are available and are not really notable enough for their own articles. Danski14^(talk) 20:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we use these articles for cluttering non-notable minor leaguers. Secret ^account 17:53, 9 September 2010 (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.