Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Shaver

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. –MuZemike 00:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Shaver

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

He played for one game, and pitched one inning in that one game, there are no references, and he hardly seems notable. Pilif 12p 05:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, unless article is a hoax. He meets WP:MLB/N since he played in (just) one major league game. Was he injured? Was his performance a disaster? Did he melt down? Inquiring minds want to know why his career in the bigs was so, so brief. More seriously, consensus says that this encyclopedia ought to have an article about every major league baseball player, without exception. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. It's a ridiculous guideline, but it states that one game in the majors is enough to establish notability. I don't agree with it, but that's what we're stuck with. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~HRRRRRGH Keep~~ Delete per IAR. I really, really want to invoke WP:IAR and just delete this ~~but I agree with Cullen's sentiments, not to mention the very clear wording of WP:MLB/N. This is an exceptional case.~~ and so I will. I have changed my mind based on 1) A good-faith and unsuccessful effort to search for any possible explanation for Shaver's leave from the Oakland A's (The only meaningful content outside of his Oakland stats that I could find was this info/brief comments on his minor league stats) and 2) JFHJr's comments below. Clarityfiend and JFH have both acknowledged that notability guidelines should not act as absolutes, and I believe this is just one of those cases. I don't think the guideline is doing Wikipedia any particular favors for this particular article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You'd think in a real encyclopedia, this would garner a footnote. Here, he'll be a stub until he ever does anything else. While I'm inclined to agree with the emerging consensus, might it be helpful to interpret notability guidelines as permissive, but not compulsory? That, and as Jethro points out, there's WP:IAR in case the rules don't serve wikipedia well. JFHJr (㊟) 08:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure I understand why his departure from the A's major league roster should require an explanation. MLB rosters are quite fluid, and players are promoted from and demoted to the minor leagues every day for a multitude of reasons, not all of which are related to performance. Can you clarify? -Dewelar (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, there might have been a presumption from Cullen that news sources exist explaining why there was a quick leave from the roster, and might support the notability of the individual. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This is a borderline case, but only because of a guideline. The actual notability of this subject isn't met even though some guidelines are met. He doesn't seem likely to gain significantly in notability in the future (but if he did, the article could be undeleted). If there's really a consensus to the contrary, I'd live with that, obviously. Sometimes bright lines are helpful, and here they're all subject to change. JFHJr (㊟) 09:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BASE/N. Played one game in the Major Leagues. Adam Penale (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the bright line of the notability threshold was crossed. Whether by an inch or a mile, it doesn't matter. There's enough referenced material in the article to verify that he meets the notability threshold. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Adam Penale (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BASE/N. There's a reason MLB players have a presumption of notability, in that they will have had enough of a career between majors, minors, and amateur play to accumulate enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. If Shaver had never played baseball at any other level (e.g., someone like Eddie Gaedel, who is notable for reasons beyond simply the fact that he played one game), I could see a justification for invoking WP:IAR, but it's just not so. -Dewelar (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of his MLB experience. Even one appearance qualifies you for the Baseball Encyclopedia, which is our minimum standard. Deleting this article via IAR would set a bad precedent. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This player clearly satisfies WP:BASE/N. This will not change. The article is notable, and that is the end of it. WP:IAR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes should be discounted. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 23:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't be discounted. There is obvious consensus here that is clearly going to win out, but I made a perfectly reasonable argument. Equating my argument as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a mischaracterization. WP:IAR is a reasonable, policy-based argument. Strictly follow this notability guideline for baseball players in this case seems senseless to me and doesn't improve Wikipedia. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WIARM, it's not about whether following the rule isn't improving Wikipedia, it's about whether ignoring the rule would improve Wikipedia -- a subtle but crucial distinction. I don't see how your argument (or anyone else's) above addresses this. -Dewelar (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also per WP:WIARM, following the spirit of the rules trumps the letter of rule. Multiple authors, even one support to keep the article, have expressed reluctance, because this individual doesn't seems to fit the spirit of the rule of notability for baseball players. And last time I checked, following rules that don't improve Wikipedia (i.e. it adds nothing valuable, or hurts the project) is exactly why WP:IAR was made, and it is why I am using it and my observations in this deletion discussion to support my reasoning. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. However, in order to invoke WP:IAR, you have to show why following the rule hurts the project in this particular instance, which you have thus far failed to do. You've just stated that it does. That's why others are claiming that it appears to simply be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based argument. Neither you nor JFHJr have made any statements regarding why the presumption of notability for MLB players doesn't apply here. Indeed, the article has been expanded with additional sourcing since its nomination. If anything, this AfD has shown why the rule should be followed, as it shows that even someone who only barely meets WP:BASE/N is likely to pass WP:GNG with little difficulty. -Dewelar (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because this baseball player isn't notable, and the guideline is being poorly applied. The source additions to the profile are just more stats, a Fredonia State Baseball website which is not independent of the subject, and a high school website with questionable reliability (e.g. saying that Shaver "played" for the Oakland A's for six years is extremely misleading). Some of the expansions deal with his minor league career. WP:IAR requires judgment calls, and I have made one-- Shaver's accomplishments wouldn't make it into a normal encyclopedia and it shouldn't make it into Wikipedia, either. You can call it WP:IDONTLIKEIT all you want, but that completely misrepresents my arguments. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason WP:BASE/N exists in the first place as a supplement to WP:GNG is that much of the coverage that would establish a player's notability is not readily accessible -- The Sporting News, for example, is available only through subscription, and not all newspapers have extensive online archives. Since notability does not degrade over time, a baseball player who played one game in the majors in 1988 is, via WP:BASE/N, presumed to be just as notable as one who did so in the age of easy digital access. It's a legitimate -- and, I would argue, necessary -- assumption to make.

You are correct that the school web sites are not necessarily reliable on the topic of his professional career, but the information for which they are used as a source is his performance as an amateur, for which I would call them reliable secondary sources.

Finally, if your standard is whether something would make it into a "normal encyclopedia" (by which I presume you mean something like the Encyclopedia Britannica and not a general baseball encyclopedia, as I have several examples of the latter on my bookshelf, all of which contain an entry for Shaver), then perhaps 95% (possibly more) of all Wikipedia articles should be deleted. Is that the position you're taking? -Dewelar (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not my position. Notability is not the only reason why there are content differences between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias. One other reason is because traditional encyclopedias are written by experts in the field willing to do so and a small editorial staff. Obviously, there are issues of space in print editions, but even online edition have a great deal of editorial oversight that slows the process of adding new content. Anyway, I'm done with this, and I've bludgeoned this issue enough. My opinion is not gaining consensus, and there are more important things to do. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASE/N. No good reason to WP:IAR on this. Rlendog (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except I've provided one and you've provided no counterargument except to say that guidelines are hard-and-fast rules (which they are not). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that guidelines are not hard and fast rules but I disagree that the argument you provided for not following the guideline in this case is a good one. Just because information on why his A's career abruptly ended is not readily available is not a reason to ignore the guideline. The same would apply to most 1 game or even a few game major leaguers. In all likelihood, no explanation for his short stay was particularly necessary because someone better became available to the team (either a player got healthy, they were able to trade for someone or pick up someone off waivers, or just decided to go with a different minor league call up). Rlendog (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has the lowest ERA in the history of Major League Baseball and is a member of the Fredonia State Athletic Hall of Fame! Hail, Hail Fredonia. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't believe the amount of time and effort people waste on these dumb arguments and in the constant search for Wiki policy loopholes and justifications. How would Wikipedia be better by having pages for approx. 14,990 MLB players and then not having pages for the remaining 10? Quick answer: It wouldn't. Also, it makes no sense to even discuss deleting an actual MLB player from Wiki at the same time that Wiki's baseball guidelines grant notability to players in the Mexican League, Korea, etc. — NY-13021 (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article could use maybe a couple more sources, but notability is established in its current state. Tinton5 (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All MLB players are prima facie notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep If you appear in a professional game, you are notable enough to have an article. Simple as that.--Yankees10 18:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Played one game. Not much, but it's enough.--Giants27(T|C) 20:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. WP:BASE/N. Enough said. Alex (talk) 21:46, 19 November 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.