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 redirect to Atlanta Braves minor league players. This can be undone if he makes it Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned after review to No Consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Pache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Lots of routine coverage of a minor league ballplayer. Fails WP:NBASEBALL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the sources don't seem to be independent of the subject and I couldn't find much sources that are. Interstellarity (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is obviously not true. All of the sources are independent of the subject. This comment should therefore not carry any weight. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B58C:8A75:F43C:4BA5 (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:SIGCOV and now on the 40 man roster for ATL. Lightburst (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NBASEBALL. Unless I'm mistaken, being on a roster doesn't do it - you have to have played in a major league game, which does not appear to have happened? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough sources to pass WP:GNG.-- Yankees10 23:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or maybe draftify - he's not yet notable, but being on the 40-man means he may make the majors in less than six months. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I realize WP:BASE/N is not yet met, which is why I originally created the title as a redirect to a section of Atlanta Braves minor league players. The subject is a top prospect, and is deserving of a section there, but all other notable minor leaguers there have a redirect to section. This is also the case on all other listings of minor league players, e.g. Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Ronald Acuña Jr. was redirected to a section soon after creation and restored to mainspace after he fulfilled BASE/N, an example of WP:BASEBALL consensus in practice. As such, the redirect should be retained until Pache makes his major league debut. If Pache leaves professional baseball before fulfilling BASE/N, PROD is the way to go, e.g. Dian Toscano, Aaron Northcraft. Vycl1994 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge for now per Vycl1994. Once he either passes WP:BASE or WP:GNG, he can have his own article. Until then, the content should be somewhere, but not here. Smartyllama (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG. In which case WP:NBASEBALL is irrelevant. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B58C:8A75:F43C:4BA5 (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The coverage of Pache is similar to the coverage that any decent minor league player would receive - there's nothing suggesting he's more notable than any specific minor leaguer per the ten year test, and WP:NBASE allows us to redirect/merge the article to the prospect page. That's a typical solution for these sorts of articles on minor leaguers, and we can always recreate it if he makes the bigs. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If a subject passes GNG, we don't care whether his coverage is similar to other "decent" players. That's irrelevant. If he passes GNG, he is notable. And at that point, NBASE is irrelevant. 2604:2000:E010:1100:A129:823B:7DD2:1814 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope. WP:NBASE discusses which type of coverage counts towards WP:GNG for baseball players, and he doesn't quite meet that threshold. If the standard for baseball players was just "has been written about," almost every prospect would be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 00:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not true. It's basic that if you meet GNG, you don't need to meet more narrow alternative ways to notability such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Which NBASE is part of. As the overarching introduction to Wikipedia:Notability (sports) states: "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person ... is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.... If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline...." So - if you meet GNG, it is irrelevant whether you meet NBASE. Editors who seem to be especially active in discussing GNG vs SNG would include User:Masem and User:North8000, but if you really want an in depth discussion of this (again) you could consider starting it at the talk page of GNG.2604:2000:E010:1100:A129:823B:7DD2:1814 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, WP:NBASE specifically qualifies what type of coverage is suitable for determining notability of baseball players. Pache's only claim to notability is that he is a top baseball prospect, but not all top baseball prospects are automatically notable - just because a player receives coverage for being a baseball player does not automatically mean that player is notable. All of the coverage of Pache is routine for a minor league baseball player. SportingFlyer T·C 01:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I think you're wrong as to GNG; please read the above. Perhaps others will chime in. Second, I think you are perhaps somewhat exaggerating when you assert that all of his coverage is "routine" for a minor league player; it is routine for a player who has made All Star Teams for three years running, has been named the 2019 MLB Pipeline Best Outfield Defender in the minor leagues, and is rated the # 11 prospect in baseball. That is, perhaps, a different class of player. Perhaps that is why he has attracted GNG coverage. But as to why, that is unimportant - it is enough that he has GNG coverage. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B0A7:9006:7E1D:BCAA (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We entirely disagree, but he hasn't actually attracted WP:GNG-level coverage: he has generated the level of coverage expected for a minor league prospect of his caliber. A simple before search includes a flurry of minor league transactions (not qualifying for WP:GNG) and Braves prospect watches - these usually aren't considered independent enough of the subject to qualify for WP:GNG, as noted in the delete !votes above. There is absolutely nothing wrong with including this information, as we traditionally have, Atlanta Braves minor league players#Cristian Pache, and creating a standalone article when the player either makes the majors or somehow becomes otherwise independently notable. SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 2 January 2020 (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.