A nice list on obscure MLB players from the 19th century. Seattle (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment I'm going to call into question the Notability of this list. A Google search brings up only Wikipedia entries, and does competing in a MLB satisfy the notability guidelines Lewis, McBride, Stafford, Sterling and Sweigert all competed in one MLB game and have articles but would say competing in a major grand slam in tennis like the 1940 Australian Championships satisfy the notability guidelines for R. Compain to be made for example. and would criteria satisfy a "list of tennis players with unidentified names" the list would certainly have enough reliable sources. (I apologize if the comment is a little all over the place.) Aureez (Talk) 21:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure. If a player has played in a professional game, at major league level, that player is implied to be notable per WP:WPBB/N. All players on the list have played in a major league game, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball) established the precedent that these players could be unnotable, due to a lack of information and sources. Because some articles such as Booth (baseball) were similar to Smith, only two lines and unlikely ever to be expanded, those players could be nominated for deletion individually, and deleted. A list would be a way of compromise, so that these players could be kept because they're encyclopedic but not notable enough for their own individual article.
I can't speak for tennis but WP:NTENNIS would be a good place to start, which says he would be notable. If there's more than a few tennis players without an identified first name, than I would create it. Seattle (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Merging them into a single article, would be adequate (ala Minnesota Twins minor league players), considering the information scrapes through notability but there doesn't appear to be enough to stand on it's own, the articles should they become comprehensive enough later can always be moved into their own article. Also Ref 1-6 need retrieval dates. Aureez (Talk) 03:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Refs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 do not need retrieval dates per WP:CITEHOW. Added an accessdate to reference 3. Thanks for the review! Seattle (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I am also a bit uncomfortable with with list's notability, but more specifically the individual articles. How can someone like this possibly be considered notable when we don't even know their name? I don't understand the concept that a single game with a professional team (if you can even call it "professional" when you play a single game in 1875) makes you a notable person; this definitely does not pass GNG. More specifically, why does this list not link to all the pages like Shaffer (baseball)? These should be merged to this list, which contains all the information anyway. Reywas92Talk 18:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
All players listed have played in at least one baseball game at a professional level, thus meeting notability standards as outlined in WP:WPBB/N. The reason why this article doesn't link to articles with limited notability is that those articles are likely to be deleted. If you would nominate individual articles like the one you linked, it would most likely be deleted per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball). A list containing such players came as a compromise, and it seems sensible to include these in an article because they meet notability guidelines but aren't notable enough for an individual article. Seattle (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment a cute list, but how do we know it's complete? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I used all players with unidentified first names listed at List of 19th-century baseball players to comprise this list. Holes certainly could be present, but that wouldn't be the failure of Wikipedia to list them: historians discover new box scores from time to time, see  for instance, and this could lead to the discovery of previously unknown players. I suspect, though, that a majority of these have been found and that there is little chance of discovering a previously unknown ball player. With that in mind, the list is up-to-date, so to speak, on current baseball research. Seattle (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd be reasonably happy to see that template added, after all who knows how many other lurkers are out there..... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Delegate's Comment - This has been open for a little over 2 months, and there is no consensus just yet, nor does it appear likely that consensus will be met soon. I am archiving this (but please note my comment above). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.