Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Moore (baseball)

John Moore (baseball)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

John Moore (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Though a common name, I'm not finding enough coverage to meet GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep He meets WP:NBASE 3 as the Birmingham Black Barons were in the Negro National League (I). He likely played more baseball for which the data is not easily accessible on the internet – as is unfortunately the case with a lot of Negro league statistics, but regardless of my hypothesis, he passes a WP:SNG. snood1205 22:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Well per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Vainowski, a topic that meets an SNG but doesn't have enough coverage is non-notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Taking a look at that AfD it seems like one of the issues is that the page had been around for at least a year without having any significant expansion in coverage. This article being only 2 months old I would hold to a different standard. The standard that was applied there is saying that articles that pass WP:SNG need to ultimately pass WP:GNG; however, articles that pass WP:SNG without immediately passing WP:GNG can be kept to allow for expansion for the article to meet WP:GNG. Especially in the case of athletes where the information is harder to research, allowing more time for expansion seems to make sense to me. I do see there were other arguments as well for delete, but I don't want to specifically rehash that AfD here. snood1205 23:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
      • How much time do you think John Moore should be given for expansion? BTW on Vainowski the article was 7,000+ bytes when deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
        • I cannot give a specific amount of time. Notwithstanding, I don't really feel that the result of that AfD is the be-all-and-end-all of results when it comes to WP:SNGs being a keep argument or not a keep argument. It feels a bit WP:WAX. There have been articles kept where the subject at the article's present state fails WP:GNG but passes a WP:SNG and then the article later passes WP:GNG. There have been times, like the AfD you have mentioned, where the article was deleted despite passing an SNG. It varies article-to-article, discussion-to-discussion. snood1205 02:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Negro league baseball players (M–R) per his extremely tiny notability, though would have preferred to link to his club's season article if there was one. Geschichte (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect: I have the option to bitch and moan like I did in the Vainowski AfD but I'm not gonna. It's pretty obvious that sources aren't gonna exist for a Negro league player who only played 3 games, so that makes the SNG moot. Curbon7 (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Played 3 games in a MAJOR LEAGUE. This is a Negro leaguer, where sources are harder to come by, but more info (especially in the last few years) is being dug up. I am leery of the nomination (not their WP:AGF, but possibly WP:POINT); the OP had one of their NFL articles deleted, so now they are targeting MLB articles, but to target a Negro leaguer is in poor taste. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Vainowski is inappropriate to apply here as it's football (NGRIDIRON) not baseball (NBASE). Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • A few months ago, a baseball bio Featured Article was deleted because it comprehensibly failed WP:GNG. The precedent exists. Curbon7 (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  If you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman), then, no, it is not applicable either. "Jones" had so little known about him that his first name was unknown, and his last name may or may not have been that of another player. The article was about the game and other unknown players, not about the article subject. John Moore, however, is verified to have existed and played in several games that are known about. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  He's referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Which came a week after Jones & was based solely on the Jones AfD. And my argument for Lewis is word for word what is is for Jones. Not applicable. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect to the target suggested above. GNG should be considered largely irrespective of reporting bias, as the subjects should all have SIGCOV whether it be readily on-hand or currently inaccessible; a standalone is not warranted if coverage can't even be presumed, regardless of the reason. The best approach for us to address media discrimination would be for articles such as this to be redirected to lists, and then for the baseball project's Negro league task force (which doesn't seem to have been active since 2016) to coordinate finding sources on each redlinked entry. WiR does this with women's bios all the time: someone comes in with a draft or a list of female award recipients and asks the project to help find refs, and often another editor with access to offline or paywalled sources provides them. The result is a far more fleshed-out profile with GNG sourcing from the get-go.

Extended commentary

While this does happen sporadically on the sports projects pages, I think the difference in underlying article creation motivation at WiR (bolstering coverage of women, with attention to producing quality encyclopedic articles) compared to the SSGs (a very large proportion of creations derive from efforts either to "complete" a category of subjects meeting an SNG, or to boost an editor's creation count; neither puts any emphasis on achieving quality and both encourage database-dump microstubs) is a much bigger factor in how frequently such collaboration occurs. Even if only a small minority of sports project editors mass-create microstubs, the protection afforded by the SNGs allows microstub proliferation to far outpace thoughtful article creation by the majority, and we end up with tens of thousands of bios on people whose notability is not clearly presumable.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep passes the relevant SNG. I disagree with using a wrongly-decided AfD about a different sport as a basis upon which to start attacking baseball articles. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)