Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Gamboa

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. Consensus clearly against deletion. The possibility of redirection can be discussed on the article's talk page. Let me know if you want a copy of that Virginian-Pilot feature czar ⨹ 21:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Gamboa

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

Non notable minor league baseball player Spanneraol (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With all honesty it probably passes GNG with another few articles I found, but the coverage is pretty much 100% because he happens to throw a knuckleball. I don't agree in keeping an article because sportswriters love this type of stuff. He's still a run of the mill non-prospect.--Yankees10 17:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your deletion reason boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If it meets GNG, it meets GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable coverage is notable coverage, even if it's largely based on one facet of the guy's game. He gets considerable mention in these links: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. I only say weak keep, though, because many of the articles come from the same source, the Baltimore Sun. Alex (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also [14] and there's also a Virginia Pilot feature article on him, but I can't find the text of it online (only the title and an abstract). But I think he passes GNG now. Alex (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Subject received one article where the subject received significant coverage from a non-primary or secondary reliable sources, where the subject was the primary topic of the content; this is from USA Today (not an insignificant source). Beyond that the subject has only received passing mention, that does not meet significant coverage. In relation to the subject's sporting career, the subject received significant coverage for one event, multiple times, from multiple reliable sources: CSNBaltimore, MASN, and Baltimore Sun. This is for Doping. Therefore, it is my opinion that the subject falls under WP:BIO1E, therefore as the subject is notable primarily for the doming event, the subject's article should be recreated to a redirect to the list regarding the event here: List of Major League Baseball players suspended for performance-enhancing drugs#Players with only minor-league experience or former MLB players. If the subject receives significant coverage outside of doping, or plays in a major league game, than this article should be recreated and expanded.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the sources provided are significant, and combined pass muster via GNG. I disagree that they're all about doping, as RightCowLeftCoast suggest, as Yankees10 demonstrates that a lot of the coverage is about his throwing a knuckleball. The reason for coverage doesn't matter, just whether there's enough of it that's in depth. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources Alex linked are enough for me. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:00, 30 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.