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} 19:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis (baseball)[edit]

Lewis (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I'm expecting controversy on this one. Technically, he did play in a major league baseball game so he passes the guidelines. However, the fact that we don't even know his full name irks me. Should we really be adding ones where baseball scholars have never been able to find the guy's name? Maybe I'm wrong, but worth discussion. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wow. Obviously anyone who has ever played in major league sports is going to be recorded, but an article should have something to say about the person beyond the statistics of the game. Borock (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment I have never created an article for these "nameless" last-namers because I didn't think it was appropriate considering the lack of any personal information to form a "biography" on the person. I will grant though, that besides places and dates of birth and deaths, there isn't much more information on many of the men who played during this era.Neonblak ^talk - 15:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find anything in WP:BIO that specifically excludes someone based on the lack of a full name. In the different guidelines, is says a full name "should be included, if known...". In this case, we know a last name and where he was born, plus we have his record establishing his notability. I think this will need several points of view.Neonblak ^talk - 15:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Easy Keep WP:ATHLETE presumes notability, and to overcome that burden, one would essentially have to show that the subject has escaped notice. Not surprisingly, a major league pitcher who allowed 20 runs to score in three innings has gained notoriety. This person figures negatively and prominently in "one of the highest scoring games in baseball history" [1] and as a young man "whose first name mercifully remains unknown" [2]. He's more notable, as we define it, then most of his teammates would be without the presumption. Mandsford 21:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP1E, it sounds like the game should have an article, and not the person. 65.94.47.11 (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you mean WP:BIO1E? Seeing that he played in 1890, I doubt he is still living... Jenks24 (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 1890 Buffalo Bisons season, allowing 20 runs in three innings has to be some kind of record, but he mostly fails WP:V if we don't know his entire name. Secret ^account 00:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any verifiability problem, in that it's verifiable that there was a person, listed in game accounts as "Lewis" and that he pitched on that day with certain results. Major league player registers for baseball and for pro football include everyone known to have played in a major league game, even if the first name is unknown [3]. Mandsford 05:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTSTATS this is just a bunch of statistics. 65.94.47.11 (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, we should have articles even when we don't know the athlete's full name, as long as he was a top-level performer. For the initial debate on this question (and its consensus, with which I agree), see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecomte. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the presumption that all major league players are notable... though I am creating pages for lots of the 19th century players I have refrained from creating articles on the players whose names arent known... however, I'm not going to push for deletion if someone else creates one. Spanneraol (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even though we only know his first name, our notability guidelines specify one game of MLB experience as an automatic qualifier. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I've gone ahead and added more to the article so that there's more than just Lewis's stats. History is filled with mysteries, including persons for whose full names are lost to history. Anyone who has ever tried to trace their ancestry has run into that problem, and there's no reason to be irked by it. Mandsford 21:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Played in the big leagues. Is article worthy. Alex (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep MLB players are notable, all 3 million of them or however many have suited up over the years. MLA (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That raised an interesting question. According to this there have been 17,498 so far in the North American majors since 1876. Mandsford 00:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that number includes the National Association, so it's since 1871. Adam Penale (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You are correct, thanks. Mandsford 15:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All Major League Baseball players are notable. WP:IDONTKNOWIT as far as his last name goes, is no excuse to delete it. I'm not about to set a slippery slope precedent for deletion today. First Lewis, then players that played only one game, then people that played only one season, then non all-stars... fuck this nonsense. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:05, 15 February 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.