- 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Kopech (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)
Non-notable minor-leaguer. Coverage is all of the WP:ROUTINE sort, from either local sources or sites focused on MLB. Fails WP:NBASE. Redirect keeps getting reverted, so here we are. Onel5969 TT me 21:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Pretty clearly passes WP:GNG. These: [1][2][3][4] for example are just from the last few days... Little ridiculous to be nominating this article for deletion.--Yankees10 21:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is enough sourcing and content on this page to satisfy GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly meets GNG. The edit warring and deletion nomination without any prior discussion that I can find is problematic. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep enough coverage exists to substantiate GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Yankees10. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per GNG. Minor leaguers can be notable. Rlendog (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2017 (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.