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. The relevant guidelines & policy cited here are WP:MLB/N, WP:GNG & WP:V. As discussed by a number of editor in this discussion, subject-specific guidelines only provide a presumption of notability, it does not replace the need for the article subject to actually meet the standard of GNG. Keep arguments have failed to address this. A deletion here does not preclude the creation of short, stub-length bio as a section within an article on for example on all players from the era where like-wise little information is known. KTC (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page name was redirected to List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names on February 23, 2014. Kraxler (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smith (baseball) (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)

Too obscure for a page, a lack of details makes this feel incomplete. If we dont even know his first name he is probably NN. Beerest 2 talk 01:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BASEBALL/N. Played in the Union Association, which is a major league. The fact that his first name is unknown at this point does not make him any less notable that the thousands of other major league players. Penale52 (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep Pases Base/n, we've gone through these discussions countless times. Consensus is clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Clearly I was wrong to say "snow"... – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per previous agreements that these players are considered notable for having played at least one game in one of several "Major" leagues.Neonblak ^talk - 22:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The only sources for this subject are stat sites. If you can argue that this is enough to pass WP:GNG, then all minor leaguers should also be considered notable since they are all found on these same exact websites with just as much if not more significant coverage. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Union Association was a "major league". He played in the UA in 1884, and it is unfair to require sources from that era be accessible online. That's why the UA is included in BASE/N. Your equivalency of a player from 130 years ago to a minor leaguer now is a false one. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not requiring anything. WP:GNG (which overrides BASE/N) requires that a "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources". I did not say anything about these sources being only accessible online. That would be a rather limiting requirement. The fact that baseball researchers have not even found a first name for this person in 130 years of print and online research would seem to indicate that this person has never "received significant coverage in reliable sources" and therefore fails the primary standard of GNG and that the assumption that everyone who has ever played major league baseball would pass GNG is an assumption without merit. Kinston eagle (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my comment below about the UA Secret ^account 17:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh for christ sakes delete Lets use common sense and do what the football/soccer and ice hockey Wikiproject does in those cases. This obviously fails WP:GNG and probably WP:V as well as we can't really trust those box scores as it could easily be a pseudonym of a former professional player or many other scenarios. Smith is a very common name back then and his information is impossible to verify. Those two Wikiprojects usually vote to delete articles of players that technically meets WP:ATHLETE (barely as there is controversy among baseball historians, particularly Bill James, whether the Union Association can be classified as official Major League) but easily fails WP:GNG and is unlikely to ever meet it, like in this case. Kinston eagle also brings a strong point with his rationale. Secret ^account 17:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notable only if the information can be properly verified, which it can't because his first name isn't known. Nick (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's understandable why some editors might think that a sketchy bit of info like this one doesn't warrant an article. But hard cases make bad law, and it would be encyclopedic malpractice to deliberately create a gap in the coverage of a subject. In other words, this information has to go somewhere as part of our complete coverage of the Union Association. By long consensus, this has been accomplished by having an article for every player. If someone wants to propose a consolidated list article to merge and redirect information about players for whom there's little information, that could be a reasonable alternative. Deletion, on the other hand, is not. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I think I would be fine with a seperate page for MLB players that have very little about them known, like only their last names, and there is quite a few from the 1870s and 1880s. Penale52 (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am fine with merging into your proposed consolidated list article similar to what we have for minor league players who do not meet GNG. Do we have a consensus on this? Kinston eagle (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is a list to get us started. These are all single-named ballplayers who have articles on wikipedia: Boland (baseball), Booth (baseball), Edwards (baseball), Eland (baseball), Evans (baseball), Franklin (baseball), Gavern (baseball), Gilroy (baseball), Hellings (baseball), Higby (baseball), Jones (left fielder), Jones (third baseman), Larkin (baseball), Leonard (baseball), Lewis (baseball), Long (baseball), Macey (baseball), McBride (baseball), McCloskey (baseball), McDoolan (baseball), McGuire (baseball), McRemer (baseball), Murphy (baseball), O'Rourke (baseball), Quinlan (baseball), Quinn (baseball), Scott (baseball), Shaffer (baseball), Sheridan (baseball), Smith (baseball), Spencer (baseball), Stafford (baseball), Sterling (baseball), Stoddard (baseball), Sullivan (baseball), Sweigert, Wills (baseball), Wood (baseball). Kinston eagle (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep.. Going with past consensus, but i'm unsure on this one.. Normally I'd say to keep all MLB players.. but I have always been unsure of these unknown name guys from the 19th century.. It's hard to argue that we have substantial sources that go into depth on this guy, considering we don't even know his first name and "Smith" is such a common surname. I don't know if a list article is a good idea though... Perhaps since these guys usually only played for one team the articles can be redirected to the appropriate season articles? Spanneraol (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I feel that including sportspeople who have competed at the highest level is a good rule of thumb, there are exceptions where common sense indicates otherwise and I think this is one. --Michig (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep It makes no sense for Wikipedia to have pages for 99.9% of major league baseball players and no page for the last 0.1%. All this would do is yield confusion and the inevitable re-creation of the missing pages by people who read BASE/N and see that such players are presumed to be notable. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dont try for a snow keep, its ridiculous to say that, especially since there is just as much "delete" as there is "keep". Beerest 2 talk 19:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody would read BASE/N and see that such players are presumed to be notable since BASE/N is not a valid policy and will most likely be changed to reflect the results of this discussion. Obviously, none of these one named players meet GNG and most never will. The idea that 99.9% of the articles on wikipedia are required to meet GNG but these should be exempt because the subjects played Major League Baseball is what makes no sense. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Again, it makes no sense to have a Wikipedia page for 99.9% of major league players and none for the other 0.1%. Your argument is little more than silly AfD lawyering. Also, it's highly unlikely that a longstanding part of BASE/N will be changed because of an AfD in which five or 10 people participate. That would be even dumber than deleting these pages you want deleted. (Also, to the other guy above, I said "Snow Keep" to emphasize how silly I believe this AfD to be.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It won't be changed because it was never meant to catch 100% of cases. It was only intended to apply almost all players. It explains this at the top of NSPORTS. Meeting it may mean you are still deleted and not meeting it may mean you still get an article. It's just a guide to help you quickly decide as a rule of thumb. -DJSasso (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only available information is a surname "Smith" and a statistical record that someone who may or may not have had that surname (given frequent use of pseudonyms in the early years of baseball) played for six innings in one baseball game. No secondary coverage. Article lacks even the most basic biographical information such as name, dates of birth and death, etc. A list of such players could be appropriate but not a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I think a little bit of common sense is needed here; we don't even know this person's name so how can we write a verifiable article about them? Maybe some of the sourced stats could be merged to a List of unknown MLB players or somesuch where details of players like this could be kept. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete but mention the data in an appropriately aggregated form elsewhere, and redirect there. Given that we know nothing of this man but his last name and a few statistics about his games, he fails WP:GNG by light-years. The fact of his existence and his performance probably bears recording in Wikipedia, although not in an article but in a list of some sort.  Sandstein  14:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've notified WP:BASEBALL with this edit. If the consensus is not to keep, it's important to use this discussion to decide what to do with the information on this page, especially as it relates to all of the similar pages listed by Kinston eagle above. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but merge into something like List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. These players should be included in Wikipedia per WP:BASE/N, criterion two, which states a player is notable if he "[has] appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball..."; players without given names are thus notable, though lacking a full name. A list would satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, while a stand-alone article seems to go against our general notability guideline as mentioned above, as sources for a surname only are undoubtedly obscure and possibly nonexistent. Listing these players seems to be a sensible compromise. Seattle (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin Not that it necessarily matters, but Kinston Eagle is the only user voting Delete whose name I recognize from prior baseball-related AfD discussions. A lot of people on this site have a slavish devotion to policies and generally enjoy the online lawyering related thereto, but it makes no sense for Wikipedia to have an article for 15,000+ major league baseball players and then no page for ~30 players whose full biographical information is heretofore unknown. The proposed deletion of this page and some others will create bigger problems (confusion, the re-creation of said pages, red links on some old roster pages and/or templates, etc.) than the deletions purport to solve. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete remember WP:BASEBALL/N only presumes notability. It doesn't guarantee it. If you can't find even his first name then likely the sources don't exist to pass WP:GNG otherwise his name would be known. -DJSasso (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though somewhat reluctantly. Without knowing the full name, there's just not enough to ensure verifiability. The idea of a list of such players is a solid one though, and so a merge to such a list is viable, but there's just not enough verifiable information for a stand alone article. oknazevad (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Questioning the presumption of notability of WP:BASEBALL/N for this specific player whose biographical information (first name, date of birth, birthplace, etc) is not known, and the only identified reference to date is a stat website. This article can never grow without the risk of using random articles about a person named "Smith" to build Frankenstein. The player is already included in WP in some lists of baseball players, which is probably the extent to which he should be WP:PRESERVED.—Bagumba (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• ????? This was leaning Keep until yesterday, and now six Delete votes have come out of the woodwork, only one of which is from someone who has been active in baseball-related AfD discussions in the recent past. Are people being recruited to this AfD? If not, why so much action on this AfD and so little on the other pending baseball AfDs? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Djsasso and Bagumba are very involved in editing baseball articles. Even if you don't "recognize" the names of other editors, that doesn't matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves eight (out of 11) Delete votes from people who never participate in baseball-related AfD discussions, including a flurry of late Delete votes. Seems odd. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, Wikipedia gives greater weight to community consensus over WikiProject consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and acknowledged above, if not directly. The question at hand is whether people are being recruited to this AfD. If not, from where are they coming? Seems awfully strange that a bunch of people with no prior interest in baseball all showed up in this AfD, when other pending baseball AfDs have no more than two responses. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where they are coming from is the notice that was placed on the baseball wikiproject. What you are seeing is baseball editors that were notified about the discussion now showing up and weighing in. All completely normal and legitimate. -DJSasso (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those notices go out on every baseball-related AfD, but most of them struggle to get a half-dozen replies. And as I mentioned earlier, I've never seen most of these names in a baseball AfD before. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hang on. Up until this AfD, you've made all of a dozen Wikipedia edits in the last half a year. If we're going to ask such questions, were you recruited to this AfD? (Heck, according to your contribution list, you've only participated in a dozen AfDs ever before this week. I expect many of us have never seen your name in an AfD before, myself included.) Ravenswing 21:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with both of your names and most of the other people in this discussion as well...People can have differing opinions without it being some kind of nefarious thing.Spanneraol (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seriously? The guy played in a MLB game. There should be absolutely no question about notability here.--Yankees10 18:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until NSPORTS is reworded from "presumed to be notable" to "guaranteed to be notable", nothing is automatic.—Bagumba (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand what "presumed notable" means. Per BASE/N, sources aren't even a requirement for people who are presumed notable. Sources are to establish notability for those who aren't presumed to be notable. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed notable means that we presume they are notable because for some cases sources might be hard to find. ie in old news papers instead of online. However, when questioned those sources do need to be found. RIght from the BASE/N "meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". I think you have a serious misunderstanding of how any of the SNGs work. -DJSasso (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and failing any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be deleted. This whole thing is silly lawyering by people who apparently have nothing better to do. ("Woo-hoo! Wikipedia no longer has a page for every major league baseball player, because we successfully argued a loophole!") - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia requires significant coverage of a subject in reliable sources for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This article fails to meet that standard, as it appears there is probably no information on him anywhere save for a box score in 1884 (and perhaps an official scorer's book) that indicated he played in a single game in the 1884 season in a league that some modern scholars (notably Bill James) now argue should not be considered a Major League at all (though Major League Baseball does officially recognize it as one). Certainly the verifiable information we have about this player should be included on wikipedia somewhere, but that is different than devoting an article to this player. This article can never be more than a stub and it clearly fails notability guidelines. If the baseball wikiproject has a guideline that conflicts with general wikipedia policy, then it should be rewritten. Indrian (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Wikipedia doesn't require sources at all for people who are presumed notable, as this guy is due to having played at least one game in a major baseball league. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are wrong, right at the top of WP:NSPORTS it says "meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". It can still be deleted if no sources can be found. All articles are required to be referenceable. -DJSasso (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N, which is the core notability guideline of wikipedia and therefore supersedes the baseball guidelines, requires all subjects to exhibit significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore, the baseball guidelines themselves only give a "presumption" of notability to Major League Baseball Players, which is different from automatically conferring notability on such a player. A presumption is a starting point for an argument, not an end point, so really the baseball guideline does not contradict the general guideline at all. Indrian (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above players are referenced in dozens of baseball-related books, databases, etc. They're just not referenced to the satisfaction of you and some others. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. You mean that they're not referenced to the satisfaction of the GNG. The GNG requires that qualifying sources discuss the subject in "significant detail" and sets forth the requirements for the same. I understand that being an inexperienced editor you might not have come across the GNG before, and recommend you give it a looksee; the NSPORTS criteria are explicitly subordinate to the GNG. Ravenswing 21:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, his stats are referenced in those places. There is no biographical information referenced anywhere save for his last name, hence the complete failure of this article to satisfy the notability guideline. Indrian (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note A very reasonable compromise was proposed to make a list page for these players. I and several of the deletion minded editors have agreed to this alternative. As did Penale52 who created nearly every single one of these single name baseball articles. Some of the keep people have also indicated their reluctant willingness to accept a list. Can we at least agree on a consensus for a list and a merger of all these players to that list as a compromise to full deletion? Kinston eagle (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A list makes more sense than deleting them outright, but why redirect all of these names to a list when we could just keep the pages? This whole thing is the height of Wikipedia silliness. Wikipedia isn't running out of room, but you wouldn't know it the way some of the people above are talking. It's downright idiotic to have pages for 15,000 or 20,000 major league players and no page for the last 20 or 30 players whose biographical information is scarce. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is more important than him technically passing WP:ATHLETE. Some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing ATHLETE is not enough when you fail GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metodija Stepanovski and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linas Klimavičius, amongst others. Yes, those are all soccer-related AFDs, but the point is there - GNG is more important than the SNG. GiantSnowman 20:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to a list article or delete - There has been pretty consistent consensus in AfD after AfD not to delete baseball players with one major league game, due to presumed notability under WP:BASEBALL/N. And I have always agreed with that, since a player who has played at the major league level has virtually assuredly received significant coverage in course of his climb to the major leagues, if not his major league career itself. And the presumed notability under WP:BASEBALL/N is particularly important with 19th century or early 20th century players, where difficulty finding sources is almost certainly more the result of sources being lost over time or not converted to internet-friendly format, as opposed to never existing (notability is not temporary). But I have always been open to the possibility that there may be cases where the presumed notability under WP:BASEBALL/N cannot be sustained, and I think this is one of those cases. Indeed, if we could ever figure out exactly who this player is, he probably is notable, but without knowing even a first name, and with such a common last name, there is no way to ascertain that. How do we even know which coverage pertaining to a baseall player named Smith, outside of the context of the one game he is known to have played, pertains to him? So we are left with some stats for a player described as "Smith (baseball)," despite the fact that there have been many, many Smiths who played baseball. Are we even certain that this player is unique, and didn't just play this game under a different name than he normally used? In addition, there is the fact that the league in which he played is probably the weakest historical major league, although this in itself is not a reason to delete single game players. I do like the idea of the list, and I think that is preferable to deletion, although I am not sure that all the last name-only players listed should necessarily be redirected there - after all, for non-common surnames there may be adequate overage indentifuable to the specific player to support inclusion of a separate article. Rlendog (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I've long been uncomfortable with the automatic presumption that anyone who's played so much as a minute of top-flight professional sports is notable, even if we know nothing about him save a surname, a date, a position and the team for which he played. We have a list at the Ice Hockey WikiProject covering similar players for the NHL, and however much I'm a partisan of minor league notability, I'd fight like the dickens against an article for obscure hockey players with nothing more than a "Dallman, F, played one game for the Montreal Victorias in 1893" line.

  That being said, can we call a halt on the notion that no one could possible be voting Delete here except through chicanery, and we're incapable of exercising sound judgment? Ravenswing 21:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Who has said that "no one could possible [sic] be voting Delete here except through chicanery"? No one. I pointed out that the sudden wave of Delete votes, almost entirely from people with no history in the baseball AfDs and/or WikiProject Baseball, seems suspicious. (And suspicious, it is. After a full week of this AfD, it was 6-5 in favor of keeping. Then, in the past 24 hours, 9 Delete voters suddenly came out of the woodwork.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as I pointed out to you earlier, this deletion discussion was just posted to WikiProject:Baseball today. Hence why people are coming and commenting on it now. It was also posted to the talk page of WP:BASEBALL/N which also probably contributed to more people noticing it. Again very common for there to be more people coming towards the end of an Afd. --DJSasso (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - per WP:BASEBALL/N – "Baseball figures are presumed notable if they ... Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues: All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players' League, Union Association." Smith appeared in at least one game in the Union Association, thus rendering him notable under that guideline. I do, however, weigh carefully the Q2 in the FAQs at SPORTS/N, which notes, "Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)" Nevertheless, I would assert that, for someone who played in 1884, a reasonable amount of time, which frankly, as there is no deadline, can be indefinite, as he meets the associated "sub-guideline". Though hypothetically, this could be a situation to ignore all rules if there ever was one, I still tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the guideline, and evidently to previous consensus. Weak keep. Go Phightins! 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally agree with your reasoning, except the prospects of finding sources with significant coverage in prose seems unlikely in this case if not even statistics sites can identify basic information such as his first name.—Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2014 (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.