Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Hewitt (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 no consensus. A Traintalk 09:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hewitt (baseball) (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)

fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't pass WP:NBASEBALL and to me the only one of the articles above that goes to GNG is the Sielski article. The rest are something nearly all first round draft picks have written about them and thus to me NBASEBALL should have some deference (or else be amended that being a first round pick of an MLB team, and possibly other leagues, is enough for notability). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, GNG supersedes NBASEBALL. We can argue over whether this meets GNG, but NBASEBALL is certainly not owed any respect up against GNG; in fact, the opposite is true. Also, I would strongly argue that the New York Daily News piece certainly contributes to GNG as do the profiles in the smattering of newspapers that have written profiles essentially on what happened to this first round pick that went nowhere. These types of pieces don't get written on every other minor league baseball player, which indicates that this one is particularly notable. Obviously, because he never played in the major leagues, he doesn't pass NBASEBALL. I would argue, however, that -- with a similar level of obviousness -- the significant coverage in numerous reliable secondary sources confers notability as per GNG. Go Phightins! 04:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more source: he's discussed for about a paragraph and a half as emblematic of the Phillies' drafting philosophy in this book. [9] (not sure if that link will point to the page, but it's pp. 140-41 Go Phightins! 04:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the sources are WP:MILL with the only one that's really not being the feature article on him failing. I don't think that gets him near the WP:GNG line. SportingFlyer talk 04:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to me that several articles also cited move towards that threshold. Feature article on his juxtaposition with other Phillies prospects Article on his release that discuss the Phillies' drafting philosophy ... that drafting philosophy clearly changed, in part, due to picks like Hewitt, as articles such as these, also in mainstream reliable sources, discuss at length [10] [11]. I am not trying to be pedantic or protective since I wrote this article like five years ago -- I hardly edit anymore -- but it just seems to me like this is a fairly obvious case of meeting GNG by being a unique case that is covered directly in the literature on the team plus a few articles on him specifically. That's FAR more than the run-of-the-mill coverage minor leaguers get in game write-ups from local newspapers. That's not what this coverage is (although there's plenty of that too; I would agree -- that is run-of-the-mill). These are almost a dozen articles from a variety of perspectives indicating his relevance to the organization that, to me, clearly meet the GNG threshold. Go Phightins! 03:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:40, 19 May 2018 (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.