Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabian Williamson

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Williamson

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

Non notable minor league baseball player who has been playing mostly in the independent leagues the last few years. Prod removed with no explanation. Spanneraol (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be honest, I thought there would be more on this guy considering his relatively long career, the trade(s) he's been involved in and the somewhat unique trajectory of his career (jumping from indy ball back to affiliated ball ... that sometimes get a story or two). But I'm not seeing anything. Alex (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Fails GNG.--Yankees10 20:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Athletes are notable if they play in a fully professional league or have significant other coverage. He fails both tests. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey, minor league baseball IS fully professional. It's not semi-pro. It's fully pro. I understand the sentiment of your argument and agree, but don't use the 'he didn't play in a fully professional league' angle because it's entirely wrong. Alex (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Professional, yes. Fully professional, no. Without something more minor league players fail notability. See WP:BASE/N. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand what fully professional means. The minor leagues are fully professional. Minor leaguers play the game professionally. It is fully professional. Alex (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this isn't clear. The list of leagues that are considered fully professional are listed in WP:BASE/N. The minor leagues are not in that list and so its players are not automatically notable as it says "Players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability." Afterward it says about minor leaguers who have WP:RS coverage that "Some minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players (for example, Minnesota Twins minor league players). Please note that such mini-bios should cite reliable sources and conform with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP." --Jersey92 (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using Wikipedia definitions, I'm using real life definitions. It's more a pet peeve of mine when people call the minor leagues not fully professional, when they are. It just makes people sound ignorant of the sport when they say otherwise. Alex (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I apologize for coming off as hostile. Sometimes I have a hard time remembering there are people on the other side of the Internet receiving these messages. I am sorry for being so harsh. Alex (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 23:02, 9 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.