Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Drake (baseball)

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Drake (baseball)

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

~~Not notable per WP:GNG or WP:BASE/N. Prod removed by an IP editor without any reason given. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)~~ I'll withdraw this nomination based on sources found. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. Alex (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, you are saying to merge to a page you are asking to be deleted. You have no consistency. Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. That's just a handful of the numerous that I found. Alex (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he passes GNG based on the above links, so I'll switch to KEEP. Alex (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 18:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Probably passes GNG, though he is still pretty run of the mill.--Yankees10 00:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that's really faulty reasoning. They need to pass GNG to even merit a merge to the teams' minor leaguer pages? Then why even have the minor leaguer pages? If they pass GNG, then they qualify for standalone articles, which would make the teams' minor league pages unnecessary. Alex (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do we have to go over this? To be on those pages you should at least come close to passing GNG or be a top prospect/first round pick. Not random late 20's career minor leaguers.--Yankees10 19:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For significant players who otherwise fail of an article, obviously: top prospects, high draft picks, leading players for the AAA team. The subject here, by contrast, has pitched all of two innings above AA, and at his age, his prospects for anything better are somewhere between slim and zero. If you can demonstrate he meets the GNG, fine, but sheesh. Make mine Delete. Ravenswing 21:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But having those pages is redundant then, since passing GNG is enough for a standalone article. Alex (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the "For significant players who otherwise fail of an article" part. In any event, if what you'd like to do is debate the notability of those organizational pages, that ought to be done on their talk pages. This isn't the venue for it. Ravenswing 06:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you gave him the idea? Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Keep: While a couple of the links Alex posted above come from blogs, a few of them are feature news articles discussing Drake in significant detail from reliable media sources: the Worcester Telegram, the Maryland Gazette, WBAL radio, Bluefield Daily Telegraph ... However much Alex's antics at AfD of late have been pointy, we need to take each AfD on its merits. I'm now satisfied that the subject meets the GNG, and only wonder why such sources hadn't been produced earlier. Ravenswing 21:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources haven't been produced earlier because these guys don't even check Google before throwing out these AfDs. Alex (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass per Alexsautographs and Ravenswing. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC) (though this nomination was withdrawn so it should have been closed anyway). Alex (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and this really should be closed. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can these sources actually added to the article so it's not AfD'd a second time for lacking good sources? Wizardman 12:42, 10 November 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.