Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray VanCleef

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 redirect to College World Series Most Outstanding Player. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ray VanCleef

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

Non-notable individual, fails GNG and BASE/N. I would be okay with a redirect to College World Series Most Outstanding Player per the precedent established here and here. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Now that the precedent has been established you really should just redirect the articles instead of bringing them to AFD if there are other similar ones out there. If someone objects then you can bring it here. Spanneraol (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His body of work and accomplishments make him notable. Alex (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why I don't simply redirect these. Alex, could you be a little more specific? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many people have been All-Americans twice and won a College World Series Most Valuable Player? Alex (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does that make him notable by any standard other than your personal opinion? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are just guidelines, notability isn't concrete or set in stone. Plus, have you considered actually looking up sources (which, I imagine, you rarely do)? I'm finding plenty just on the abstracts from sites like newspapers.com. Alex (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know whether or not I look up sources? Do you work for the NSA? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your past AfDs, what you consider "checking for sources" is just looking at the first page of Google returns. Alex (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. I do not feel any obligation to further defend and/or explain my methods of checking for sources to you, especially since you aren't going to listen anyway. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Guidelines are indeed guidelines, and they're not set in stone. And in order to set them aside, we need to see some frigging seriously compelling arguments. "His body of work and accomplishments make him notable" isn't one. For all you claim that you've got "plenty" from newspapers.com, Alex, I see you posted just one link, routine sports coverage from a small local paper. Where are the rest? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Behind a $79 a year Newspapers.com subscription that I'm not going to pay. Alex (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - So Alexsautographs, how about we let this and others like it get redirected. I doubt you will get a consensus to keep these without showing some significant sources anyway. A redirect would preseve the history and if (inexpensive) sources do turn up in the future it will be easy enough to reverse the redirect and add the sources. Forcing all of these to come to AfD just wastes time and risks the articles getting deleted altogether, with little chance of a keep. If you want to reverse the redirect and add sources, I don't think anyone will have a problem with that but until then there is little point arguing over them. Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great, Alex, but if you don't actually have a newspapers.com subscription, could I ask exactly where you got these links you claim exist are from, and how you managed to review them to ensure they're good cites? Because if you can't actually get at them, I've got to question whether they exist at all. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why delete and not redirect when there is a perfectly appropriate redirect target? Rlendog (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to College World Series Most Outstanding Player. If signifciant sources turn up the redirect can always be reversed and the new material added. Rlendog (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect if you want. The newspapers.com sources are all very much routine coverage. Only a handful of sources noted him beyond one sentence. Wizardman 15:39, 25 May 2015 (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.