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. The subject meets WP:ATHLETE. The question the nominator is asking is "should we make an exception in this case?". After all, he only played in one game. Consensus (at least in this debate) appears to be that we shouldn't. There's a discussion concerning changing WP:ATHLETE here. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Schelle[edit]

Baseball player who only played in one professional game and does not appear to be notable. Declined prod because this one game technically makes him meet WP:ATHLETE. But we must remember that WP:ATHLETE is just a guideline, nothing more, and we also need to use our heads and exercise some judgment—there are cases such as this where someone might fit the specific criteria set aside in the notability guideline but there is no intuitive reason to consider the person notable. In other words, I am asking if this article should be an exception to the usual guideline. I would like to hear more input from the community about this particular article, rather than just repeating the criteria from WP:ATHLETE. Thanks. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I declined the PROD, and while I think Rjanag makes a reasonable argument, I also think there is room for an article on this fully professional player, even though he only played one game. It is obvious that there are varying degrees of notability for professional sports players, but I think we can and should have an article on every professional sports player. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prodded this article fully well expecting that it would be deprodded, because, as noted by the nom, Schelle's one game technically makes him meet WP:ATHLETE. However, besides a mention on baseball-reference.com, no other sources exist and it is likely that we'll never find any other sources, meaning that all we can ever have in this stub is the info copied (and reworded - I am not implying copyvio here) from baseball-reference.com. I gingerly suggest that having literally thousands of such stub articles around is not very encyclopedic and not very informative either. At best, an article like this should be redirected to the article about the team or to a list of former players for this team. --Crusio (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No other sources exist, or no other sources on the internet exist? These are two very different things, especially when talking about a player from 1939. In this case it is not even true to say the latter, however: Google News and Google Books provide several sources. Strikehold (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access most of these, but the majority of the Google News sources appear to be write-ups of college games in which he played, so they don't really have any bearing on his "notability" as a professional player. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if he has coverage in multiple, reliable sources that means he meets WP:N which can confer notability on any subject regardless of whether they meet the additional subject-specific guidelines. The fact that he was notable for his college play means he is, in fact, notable. The fact that he played professionally only increases his notability, it doesn't negate his notability as a college player. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell how much of that coverage is "of" him. Granted, I don't have access to the full articles right now, but as far as I can tell they're just boilerplate-style rundowns of typical games, and happen to mention him; there certainly aren't entire NYT or Chicago Tribune articles about Mr. Schelle. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator acknowledges he fits the notability criteria, which exist written as they are for the reason of being used in that way, not to be interpreted anyway someone pleases. It is a simple matter of having an objective rather than subjective manner to deal with notability. Strikehold (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I acknowledged that he fits the notability guideline, but what I specifically said in my statement is that we should not always simply follow the guideline like robots. Notability is never going to be 100% objective. As clearly stated in ((guideline)) at the top of every guideline page, "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". That's the very reason I brought it here: to see if it's an exception. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clearly, I understand what you said, and I dissent. The "guideline" is to give a concrete line in the sand. WP:ATH exists for this very reason: the presumption that all highest-level professional players are notable, regardless of sources available on them, because in the distant past these sources can be difficult to find. Those articles are a mix of college, minor, and major league coverage, but it's really irrelevant of what level, because it is from the New York Times and Chicago Tribune. Strikehold (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons in my comment above. Basically, meets WP:ATHLETE and WP:N, and I see no compelling reason to ignore the guidelines in this case and delete the article. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lord if there was ever a reason to not follow the guideline, it's this. One game almost 70 years ago? Are there any other sources on this fellow's life? What else could be said besides "he played one game"? I would think this a case where the main notability guidelines take precedence (extensive coverage in secondary sources). He doesn't really merit an article based on the sports guidelines, so let it fall under the primary guidelines (which he doesn't pass). Perhaps my standards are too high, but the news and books sources are basically "he played baseball" (once). The page has reached the limit of what it can say (actually it's past, his death date is uncited). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is permanent, so playing 70 years ago is wholly irrelevant. The sources are not basically saying "he played baseball (once)", they are from many different games he played in. Albeit not all at the highest professional level, but this is not required under WP:N. Strikehold (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Think of it this way: if a pitcher played one game in the Major League today, there would be virtually no question of his notability. Even casual baseball enthusiasts would probably know his name, and he would have widespread coverage in the media easily accesible on the internet. Now remember that notability is not temporary; this is the reason WP:Athlete exists written as it does. There would likely be no question of that same athlete's notablity today, but since it was so long ago, sources are hard to find, and most people don't know his name firsthand since they were not alive at the time. Strikehold (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that people know someone's name doesn't establish notability. We have already deleted scores of articles on popular icons, memes, etc., for not meeting notability even though thousands of people know about them. Take, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxxy. In that case, the topic was well-known among one demographic, internet meme followers/immature people/whatever you want to call it; in example you give above, the demographic is baseball fans. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing an "internet meme" to a person is a false analogy. The fact is, if he played last season, he would have received widespread media coverage that is readily accessible on the internet. The only reason there is any question at all is because he played 70 years ago, and that line of thought violates "notability is not temporary". Strikehold (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in my nomination statement did I complain about the fact that his game was 70 years ago. If he had played only one game and it was just last year, I still would have AfDed him (assuming there was no chance he would be playing another game this season). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Schelle played a game for the Philadelphia Athletics, he must have played multiple seasons at the professional minor league level of the Athletics or other farm organizations. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is perfectly possible that that one game might be of great interest to some readers. If you are not interested in sport or baseball then even Babe Ruth may be of no interest. This is why we cannot use our personal judgement in deciding notability, we have to look at what the world at large considers notable. That is why objective thresholds are needed rather than subjective opinion. SpinningSpark 18:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there are pretty convincing objective arguments that Babe Ruth is notable, things like multiple reliable, independent sources (despite him dating from well before the Internet age, too). We don't see anything like that here, just the assertion "it's 70 years ago, certainly there must be something, I just can't find it right now". --Crusio (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You first comment that there is nothing on the internet about him. I then do a ten-second cursory search and find multiple instances to disprove that assertion. No one ever said anything like what you have in quotes. The only reason I said anything about "70 years ago" is to explain why WP:ATH is written the way it is. It is to reduce subjectivity by making all top-tier professional athletes notable, regardless of meeting WP:N. As shown by the results of my cursory search, Schelle may meet WP:ATH and WP:N. Strikehold (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are attributing to me things I have not said. I made no argument that Jim Schelle is as notable as Babe Ruth. Merely that he is notable enough for some readers to find interesting. Nor did I say "it's 70 years ago, certainly there must be something, I just can't find it right now" or anything remotely like it. My position is that there is enough verified material in the article already. If more can be found, all well and good, but my keep was not dependant on the possibility that it will be found. SpinningSpark 20:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this article in conjunction with my List of athletes from Maryland project. I only included persons on that list who met the WP:ATHLETE criteria. I understand the comments for removing the article, but must disagree. The history of baseball is replete with players who may have played limited games as the highest level of the sport. These players are significant not only from the shear joy of having such a complete history of the game but also for statistical analysis and sabermetrics.--dashiellx (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, close. The notability guideline is clear. There's no clear-cut alternative. If this goes through, we'll have another round of deletion warring that will make the fiction battles look tame. This is a disastrously bad idea, and ignores the clear consensus to leave well enough alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to re-read my nomination statement, and the various comments above. This is not a discussion of whether Schelle meets WP:ATHLETE (we all know he does), but of whether an exception should be made in this case. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we delete this article, we set a precedent to delete thousands of others. Zagalejo^^^ 02:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALLORNOTHING. And, as for setting a precedent...that's fine with me, that's why I opened this up for discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it wouldn't be all or nothing. It would be interminable debates over how many games played are enough (1 start as a pitcher is the same as how many games for an outfielder, isn't playing in one of 12 or 14 or 16 football games in a season the same as how many hockey games or basketball games. If you thought the TV episode wars made wikipedia a better place (and you might just be the first), you'll love this idea. But when the dust settled in about five years you'd be proven wrong. Now can we drop this and get some help over on BLPs? Take a look at what I just took out of Priscilla Presley, realize there are thousands and thousands and thousands more bios that haven't been adequately checked, and put this bad idea on hold until BLP clean is finished. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article could use better sourcing, he clearly meets the notability guidelines for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I doubt we'll ever be able to say that much about him, but we might as well keep his article for the sake of completion. All of the basic facts are verifiable, so the article doesn't violate any policies. Zagalejo^^^ 02:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question to nominator You accept he meets WP:ATHLETE. In your view, does he meet WP:N? AndrewRT(Talk) 12:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not at all. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability Analysis Hoping that this will allow us to discuss the specifics of the notability criteria where there is dispute.

Per WP:GNG

Significant coverage - Subject of article is covered directly in detail from the source.
Reliable - Source of coverage has been deemed reliable
Sources - Source of coverage is a secondary source and no original research was done.
Independent of the subject - source of coverage is independent of the subject.
Presumed - coverage in source establishes a presumption of notability

Per WP:ATHLETE

competed at the fully professional level of a sport

Please comment on which item(s) the article does not meet. --dashiellx (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 5 are the ones I do not believe are met, and I just feel that he does not meet subjective, unwritten notability standards. Again, I stand by my argument (from my nom statement) that these are only guidelines and we need to take them with a grain of salt. A guideline might cover 99.9% of articles, but there will still be a few that require human judgment to evaluate. To be perfectly frank, I'm getting a little annoyed at the number of people who are ignoring my clear request for that sort of discussion, and instead just parroting WP:ATHLETE back at me. If I wanted to know whether this article meets WP:ATHLETE, I could have looked up WP:ATHLETE and then gone and eaten ice cream. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to come across as rude, etc... or annoy you I apologize if I am coming across in that manner. However, I do disagree. In WP:N, it stats: "A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines." Which in this case it does meet in WP:ATHLETE. I can see your point concerning Significant coverage, but the word significant is open to interpretation. As far as presumption of notability, I think that is by default presumed since it has coverage from a third party source. --dashiellx (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous are the articles that got deleted at AfD despite coverage from third party sources. The coverage needs to be substantial, not circumstantial. I think that the latter applies in this case. --Crusio (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, you're not one of the people who is annoying me. Anyway, my point is just that, yes, WP:N and WP:ATHLETE claim this person is notable; my question, though, is whether there is any reason to follow them in this situation. Too many people here are just saying "meets _____, so he's notable" without actually answering my question (my question is not about the first half of that statement, but the second—not about whether he meets WP:ATHLETE, but about whether that means we should keep him). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are really not entitled to be annoyed with people for being guided by the guidelines. You can if you want, and have done, ask them to be guided instead by your views, but there is no reason why anyone should comply. The relevant guideline is WP:ATHLETE and it should not surprise anyone that people are using it for its intended purpose. SpinningSpark 21:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's the problem with this article? He passes this notability criterion, and the existence of "write-ups of college games in which he played" enables us to expand his article. There easily could be more sources: someone might check Baltimore or Philadelphia or Weymouth newspapers, and Villanova's sports archives might well contain information as well. Since by definition one who meets WP:ATHLETE meets WP:N, the possibility of other sources existing isn't a crystal ball argument: it's only saying "this notable person might well have much more written about him". Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions This is the first time I've ever had an article go into this process or being involved in the process. How long do these discussions remain open before the AfDM tag is removed from the article. Thanks. --dashiellx (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually 5 days, unless it snows. --Crusio (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --dashiellx (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This person clearly meets WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. It's a well-written article and all of the facts are independently verified from reliable sources. He is referenced in multiple independent sources; although he only played in one game, this kind of article can be very useful for the encyclopedia as a whole, particularly when used via something like DB-pedia and there are no problems here. I can see no reason or purpose in departing from these guidelines in this case. In fact, there are significant risks if articles like this are deleted or even AFD'd that the kind of editors who regularly add content will feel demotivated; it's not fair on them to establish guidelines, encourage them to add content, only for us to whimsically decide later to change the rules and throw their work in the bin. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did anyone see this? It probably wouldn't count as a RS itself, but it does suggest that there is more information available "out there". And FWIW, here is the guy's Find-a-Grave profile. Zagalejo^^^ 20:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The general consensus is that people who are verifiable professional sportsplayers who played in a professional game. The guideline does not mention more than one game needs to be played, so there's no good reason to make an exception. If we were to delete someone because they played only one game, soon we could have an arbitrary line 4 games higher. - Mgm|^(talk) 04:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The (less subjective) line should not be the number of games, but the amount of non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Crusio (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an obvious keep (see WP:ATHLETE). Playing in one Major League game makes him de facto notable. Unionsoap (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2009 (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.