Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perry Lipe

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 no consensus. v/r - T P 20:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Lipe

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. Never had any real involvement in the major leagues. He did lead two teams to league championship victories in the minors, however. Alex (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If this guy is non-notable, why did you create the page just 2 months ago? Would you mind explaining that? I'm not looking to start any battles here, but I bet this is the 20th time I've seen you do this in recent months (i.e., nominate one of your own pages for deletion). NY-13021 (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention this yesterday, but this guy also has a baseball card in the most famous baseball card set of all time (1909–1911 T-206). Between that, the consecutive-games record he once held, and his years as a manager, I'd bet he passes WP:GNG, even if, perhaps, finding specific citations is difficult. — NY-13021 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, I read the entry and looked up on Google. The purely WP:RS entries are in line with the clearly unnotable description in the WP article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This guy's baseball career ended some 85 years before the internet was in wide use, so Google can't be expected to help much. A search of Google News and Google Books, however, yields plenty of links. I only voted Weak Keep above, but it just seems hard for me to believe that if this guy was considered one of the 500 most notable people in baseball from 1909–1911, as suggested by his inclusion in the T-206 baseball card set, that he didn't get sufficient coverage back then to warrant a Wiki entry. — NY-13021 (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete by CSD A7 and stop wasting our time. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Time." That's cute. You guys act as if it is an obligation to pay attention and waste your "time" by replying. Alex (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you act as if the most basic Wiki policies don't apply to you. Why is it so hard for you to understand that a page should not be created if you haven't confirmed notability in advance? You're the Wiki equivalent of a person who shoots first and aims later. — NY-13021 (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability is different according to each individual's viewpoint. Alex (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Are you deliberately trolling now? If that's how Wiki worked, then it wouldn't be Articles for Deletion, it would be Articles for Creation. Why would Wiki want pages created and then deleted? While WP:GNG has some room for debate, it clearly requires sources to establish notability, yet you keep creating new pages with zero sources and then posting them in AfD. — NY-13021 (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly weak keep - The fact he was a one-time holder of the consecutive-games-played record in professional baseball is a plus in his favor, as well as the fact he won league championships as a manager. The lack of references is concerning, though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm somewhat on the fence, but the consecutive games streak, which also gets a paragraph in a couple of Spalding Guides, and the age, which makes finding coverage that likely existed difficult, pushes me towards keep. Rlendog (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2011 (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.