Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kehoskie

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) - Closed partly because of consensus to keep and partly because of possible Sock problems. Because of possiblility that the Keeps aren't socks, I can't close as delete. Vacation9 (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Kehoskie

[edit]
Joe Kehoskie (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)

Article is allegedly for a baseball player agent, but according to its text, the only specific Major League Baseball player he can be said to have represented had a very brief career and retired in 1998. Much of the article consists of listing more famous people with whom the subject's various lower-level jobs put him in "degrees of separation."

Also seems likely to have been written by the subject. DwaynefromME (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep This article has 29 citations & the subject has 129 hits in the U.S. Google News Archives, over 200 hits at U.S. NewsLibrary & 15 hits at U.S. Google Books. It appears nominator DwaynefromME created his account just so he could nominate this page for deletion, but the citations in this article easily surpass WP:GNG. Nominator also alleges the article was written by the subject, but I don't see any violations of WP:NPOV. // 91.105.232.27 (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that thread is going to be entered into evidence, please note two points about it:
  1. Mr. Kehoskie threatens to "dox" his enemies, thus the desire for anonymity;
  2. He is repeatedly accused of writing the Wikipedia entry and never denies it. DwaynefromME (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith The preceding comment by DwaynefromME sounds like a clear admission that he nominated this page in bad faith, as the result of a political argument. Not cool. (If the nominator didn't know about that political argument, why would he have a "desire for anonymity"?) // 91.105.232.27 (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I think we've cleared up any ambiguity about the motives of the nominator or whether or not the nominator is connected to a heated argument over on some baseball website. WP:SK seems applicable, as I now have little doubt that the nomination was made solely for harassment. To the original nominator, that you apparently had a fight with the subject of the article has little bearing on this issue. Last I checked, there's no Wikipedia: Subject of Article Displeased Me. This is an extremely awkward nomination, so I've requested additional input from editors on how to deal both with this nomination and any possible further actions that need to be taken. Wikipedia is not a playground for people to hash out their disagreements from elsewhere. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a few sources out there that clearly establish his bonafides when it comes to Cuban baseball (NY Times, PBS, ESPN) and a piece from Westlaw http://lawschool.westlaw.com/shared/marketInfoDisplay.asp?code=CR&id=25 makes a better case, though I think it's close. The article should definitely be a lot shorter and more focused as there's a lot of extraneous links and information in there. A relatively unknown figure doesn't need that much bloat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeCrumbs (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Leaving aside the COI issue, this is an article about a non-notable individual. As far as I can tell, that Westlaw source is the only one that discusses the subject in a non-trivial manner. More than one non-trivial source is required for GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two more sources: The Daily (not on Wiki page), Life in the Fast Lane (not on Wiki page). - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples are what LogicalCreator described above. Providing brief support quotes for an article does not make the article "about" the person providing the quotes.
As I read the article's text, the subject has been a baseball agent for 16 years, yet at best has represented one highly obscure Major League Baseball player. (Clever wording in the article implies that he has represented José Bautista and Félix Hernández, but it seems clear that that's not the case -- click name links for Google searches.) That is not a notable person, even if said person has been quoted/appeared in media a few times in those 16 years. DwaynefromME (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More bad faith from bad-faith nominator There's no special Wikipedia notability guideline for baseball agents. All that matters is that the subject passes WP:GNG for any reason, and the list of references above establishes that he does. (If he's not notable as a baseball agent, why does the media quote him as an expert on a regular basis?) Also, contrary to your continued bad-faith claims, the list of citations above are not "the same as LogicalCreator described." I just listed at least seven (7) new references above (ESPN, Toronto Globe and Mail, The Sporting News, Seattle Times, etc.) that aren't currently cited on the Wikipedia page in question. - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean (or write...) that they were literally the same cites. My point is that they share the quality LogicalCreator described of mentioning Kehoskie in passing while discussing the article's true subject, rather than being articles about him in any meaningful sense.
Regarding the criteria for agents in general, I note that Category:American_sports_agents has 81 entries. Considering the size of the American sports industry, that seems to be pretty exclusive. And some of those 81 can't be challenged on notability because they are former major league players. Of the remaining number, I'd be curious to know how many have as little verifiable record of representing major leaguers in their sport as Kehoskie appears to. DwaynefromME (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Your curiosity isn't a Wikipedia standard. The only thing that matters here is WP:GNG.
If your point was that the subject is only "mentioned in passing" in the references listed, you were incorrect. This Toronto Globe and Mail article mentions the subject in five out of six paragraphs. This WestLaw article is entirely about the subject. This ESPN article says he was one of the two central figures in a 60-minute ESPN show, and this PBS page shows he was one of the main figures in a PBS documentary. If not for the ax you have to grind, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let folks evaluate the other cites for themselves, but I will say that claiming that the Globe and Mail article is about Kehoskie because he's "mentioned in five out of six paragraphs" is disingenuous IMO. Yes, his name is mentioned... giving quotes about the World Baseball Classic final game and the players involved. That is what the article is about. If the author Jeff Blair had seen the game himself and repeatedly written that "I" saw this and that in the game, would that have made it an article proving that Jeff Blair was a notable person? I would hope not. If we were to evaluate Blair's notability, it would be based on his accomplishments in his career as a Globe and Mail reporter.
Each of the 30 Major League Baseball teams has bloggers whose opinions of games and players are cited throughout both the blogosphere and mainstream media on a daily basis, far more often than we're seeing here. Again, though, the bloggers' notability is based not on digging up a handful of name-mentions, but on evaluating their success in their careers as bloggers (and few have been found to be notable).
In the same manner, Kehoskie's notability rests on his accomplishments as an agent. DwaynefromME (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be making up your own Wikipedia standards. Clearly, reliable sources are quoting Kehoskie as an expert in the field. Under guidelines for notability, the subject does not have to be the main subject of an article. A reliable source searching out and mentioning someone specifically for expertise is more than a passing mention. Why do you keep making up a WP:SportsAgents guideline and then strictly comparing Kehoskie to this guideline, ignoring all evidence of notability? God, do you think David Berkowitz's page should be removed because he doesn't match up to some ridiculous WP:Mailman guideline you made up?
As I said, he appears to be borderline, but being widely cited by his peers is a guideline under WP:BIO. You haven't quoted a single Wikipedia guideline in support of your nomination other than your assertion to lack of notability. Why does Wikipedia have to be subjected to your personal grudges? Are you 5? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't the most interesting article on Wikipedia, but the current sources plus the new sources listed above are enough to meet WP:GNG. Here's another new reference (Edmonton Journal) that mentions the subject almost 20 times. || Note: Voting from IP (AT&T Business); don't want any retaliatory edit wars with the nominator, who seems like a man on a mission. || 64.134.103.30 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highly Irregular Goings-On. Apart from the merits of whether we should keep or delete the Joe Kehoskie article, somehting very odd is going on in this AfD discussion. Other than User:Moboshgu and User:LogicalCreator, every other participant in this AfD is either a newly created account or an IP address (in two cases, from a country where baseball has a very minor following):
  1. . User:DwaynefromME – Nominator is a newly created account;
  2. . User:91.105.232.27 – First-time IP participant with Russian Federation IP address;
  3. . User:CoffeeCrumbs – Newly-created account;
  4. . User:202.71.129.154 – First-time IP participant with Indian IP address;
  5. . User:64.134.103.30 – First-time IP participant with a corporate account dynamic IP address in Austin, Texas.

This whole AfD smells a like a giant sock farm. I would suggest that one of our Wikipedia administrators check out what's going on here. Apparently this article and/or Joe Kehoskie are the subject of some off-wiki controversy, and that this AfD is being used to continue that off-wiki combat here. This merits closer investigation, and I would suggest that this AfD be placed on hold while that investigation takes place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's difficult to have an open, good-faith AfD discussion when the nomination was made in bad faith. It's clear this nominator has an ax to grind; anyone who votes against him from their main Wikipedia account is opening him or herself to retaliation. Brand-new accounts can't create pages; they probably shouldn't be able to AfD them either. -202.71.129.154 (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, this is a new account. That's why, if you check the edit history, I put up a block to ask for experienced editors to bring in input for a difficult situation. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with you DirtLawyer. That Baseball Think Factory link up above demonstrates that there is something fishy here. There is a good chance those above listed accounts and IPs are socks. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am Dennis Brown, and I am not a sock. Just wanted to make that clear since I feel like I'm in a sock drawer here. There is at least one article where he is the primary subject, and in several articles, he is quoted and was contacted, assumably as an expert on the subject. Those alone would likely quality as he wasn't just mentioned, but was sought out for his opinion by the reliable sources. In the end, while he isn't the most famous person I've seen, he cleanly passes the requirements here as the sources have demonstrated that they consider him notable. Our job is NOT to determine if WE THINK he is notable, it is to determine if the sources consider him notable, and they do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BASIC  The Steve 
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_Kehoskie&oldid=1142211554"