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 delete. NW (Talk) 00:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut Williams

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor leaguers are not inherently notable. This player doesn't have significant coverage. I don't think this article passes muster with WP:BASEBALL/N Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's not notable.--Yankees10 01:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor leaguers are not notable and this is no exception. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 20:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is in no way true. Can you cite policy that backs that up? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something that may be of interest to you: WP:BASEBALL/N. "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." That means that your statement "Minor leaguers are not notable" is false. They can be notable if the articles adhere to the general notability guidelines. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a borderline case. Williams only played in the low levels of the affiliated minors, and has been in independent ball for several years. However, he is fairly notable within the context of independent baseball, as the 2006 MVP of the Golden Baseball League [1] and a two-time All-Star within that league. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While minor leaguers are not inherently notable, that does not mean none of them are notable. Two time All-Star and 2006 MVP for his league is definite evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk)
Keep Agreed with Edward321, being the MVP of your league is a notable event in a player's career. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being league MVP establishes notability. The quote that insists that, "Minor leaguers are not notable and this is no exception," is completely false. MOST minor leaguers are not notable, and there ARE exceptions, such as Peanut Williams. Vodello (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that he is the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:N and WP:ATH. Regarding the MVP award, I note that WP:BIO specifies that a person receiving a "well-known or significant award or honor" is generally notable. In view of the paucity of media coverage of the Golden Baseball League MVP award, I don't think it can be regarded as well known or significant. BRMo (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite Brian's good point about the notability of minor leaguers, this article fails the notability guidelines for baseball and WP:GNG. Half of it is OR, which WP is not. Worse, all of the prose is unreferenced. The only reason to keep, IMO, is the MVP award. A) the article doesn't even mention that. If ya'll are going to say that's a good reason to keep it, it would help if you put it in. B) BRMo is right - I don't think that being MVP of a nearly unknown league is enough. There is a table on the league page. That's all we need. Nolelover 17:22, 16 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.